Le Jeudi 24 Novembre 2005 18:07, Peter Eisentraut a écrit : > Tom Lane wrote: > > I don't see any strong reason for enforcing that as policy, if the > > language maintainer wants an entry. (But is Alvaro the maintainer of > > pl/php?) My recollection is that we identified some pros and cons of > > having listings for non-core languages, and decided it should be up > > to the language maintainers to decide what they want. > > Perhaps Alvaro can identify the reasons why he wants this done and then > we can determine whether it's a good idea.
Hi, I am not a postgresql expert but there is one thing I think important about adding language into core postgresql: each time you'll add a new features needing external libraries into core package, this mean the guy building postgresql should have devellopment files for of the library installed at postgresql compil time. For exemple, on pgfoundry you can found pgrpm (rpm binding for postgres), this kind of thing have nothing to do into postgresql core package IMHO, because to be built it need rpm to be installed, most of system doesn't have rpm. It is same things for language, is it a good to have perl, tcl, python, php, ruby, lua, basic, lisp (add other crazy idea here :) provided by postgresql itself ? I don't know what language I will use tomorrow, but I know I am already using postgres. Wouldn't be better, like for pgrpm, to provide this kind of things as external project/plugins that can be build and installed later ? But you surelly have a better point of view of this than me. BTW, In mandriva, since postgresql 8.0, there is one rpm per language to avoid dependencies flow, so you need to install language lib only if you install PL/language .so files. My 2 cents, hope this help.
pgpcbwVxXDzJs.pgp
Description: PGP signature
