On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 01:50:45PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > I'm going through the anonymous-code-blocks patch now. There are > > some things missing, notably the ability to create a language with > > an anonymous-code-block handler. The only way you can do it is to > > have a pg_pltemplate entry, which is certainly not good enough for > > languages not distributed with the core. The obvious solution is > > to add an optional clause "INLINE function_name" to CREATE > > LANGUAGE, paralleling the VALIDATOR clause. This'd require adding > > INLINE as a keyword. (I assume it could be an unreserved keyword, > > but haven't actually tried yet.) Does anyone object to that plan, > > or want to propose a different keyword? > > Should we consider another generic options syntax, while we're on a > roll? In the long run, that's the best way to avoid having a > zillion keywords. > > CREATE LANGUAGE name (TRUSTED, PROCEDURAL, HANDLER x, VALIDATOR y, > INLINE z);
I understand that some PLs are OO, functional, etc., but for our purposes, isn't PROCEDURAL just noise? Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
