Best regards,
Hans
Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I'm not convinced that PLs are more tied to the core than say OpenFTS, and if we can't maintain that kind of thing externally, then this whole extension thing sounds like a failure to me.
It's *possible* to do it. Whether it's a net savings of effort is questionable. For instance, I've had to hack plperl and plpgsql over the past couple days to support OUT parameters, and the only reason I didn't have to hack the other two standard PLs is that they are a few features shy of a load already. I'm pretty sure pl/r and pl/java will need changes to support this feature too. If they were in core CVS then I'd consider it part of my responsibility to fix 'em ... but they aren't, so it isn't my problem, so it falls on Joe and Thomas to get up to speed on what I've been doing and do likewise. Is that really a win?
The point here is really that we keep finding reasons to, if not flat-out change the interface to PLs, at least expand their responsibilities. Not to push it too hard, but we still have only one PL with a validator procedure, which IIRC was your own addition to that API. How come they don't all have validators?
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
-- Cybertec Geschwinde u Schoenig Schoengrabern 134, A-2020 Hollabrunn, Austria Tel: +43/664/393 39 74 www.cybertec.at, www.postgresql.at
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
