Re: [PATCHES] actualized SQL/PSM patch

2008-04-03 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > ... I suspect anyone wanting to migrate > > their existing SQL/PSM stuff to Postgres will be less than impressed by > > our "function body as a string" mechanism. > > Yeah, that's the other little problem with claiming standards-c

Re: [PATCHES] actualized SQL/PSM patch

2008-04-03 Thread Bruce Momjian
Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > Jonah H. Harris wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> The fundamental problem I've got with this patch is that it adds 400K > >> of new code (and that's just the code, not counting documentation or > >> regression

Re: [PATCHES] actualized SQL/PSM patch

2008-04-03 Thread Tom Lane
"Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I thinking about new directory structure (some like) > pl/sqlsp/ .. sql Stored Procedures > pl/sqlsp/utils > pl/sqlsp/plpgsql - only plpgpsm code > pl/sqlsp/plpgpsm - only plpgsql code Maybe "common" instead of "utils"? Also, where did "plpgpsm" com

Re: [PATCHES] actualized SQL/PSM patch

2008-04-02 Thread Pavel Stehule
Hello > > I'm not against having SQL/PSM support. I'm just saying I'm not > willing to support two copies of plpgsql to do it. > > regards, tom lane > I understand it well. Pending development of plpgpsm I respected unbreakability plpgsql. So I can move duplicate parts

Re: [PATCHES] actualized SQL/PSM patch

2008-04-02 Thread Joshua D. Drake
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:57:11 -0400 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The fundamental problem I've got with this patch is that it adds > >> 400K of new code

Re: [PATCHES] actualized SQL/PSM patch

2008-04-02 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ... I suspect anyone wanting to migrate > their existing SQL/PSM stuff to Postgres will be less than impressed by > our "function body as a string" mechanism. Yeah, that's the other little problem with claiming standards-compliance as a reason for do

Re: [PATCHES] actualized SQL/PSM patch

2008-04-02 Thread Tom Lane
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The fundamental problem I've got with this patch is that it adds 400K >> of new code (and that's just the code, not counting documentation or >> regression tests) that we'll have to maintain, to obtain a feature

Re: [PATCHES] actualized SQL/PSM patch

2008-04-02 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Jonah H. Harris wrote: On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The fundamental problem I've got with this patch is that it adds 400K of new code (and that's just the code, not counting documentation or regression tests) that we'll have to maintain, to obtain a

Re: [PATCHES] actualized SQL/PSM patch

2008-04-02 Thread Joshua D. Drake
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:55:45 -0400 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I actualized sql/psm patch. This patch can be downloaded from > > http://www.pgsql.cz/patches/plpgpsm.diff.gz > > The fundamental

Re: [PATCHES] actualized SQL/PSM patch

2008-04-02 Thread Jonah H. Harris
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The fundamental problem I've got with this patch is that it adds 400K > of new code (and that's just the code, not counting documentation or > regression tests) that we'll have to maintain, to obtain a feature that > so far a

Re: [PATCHES] actualized SQL/PSM patch

2008-04-02 Thread Bruce Momjian
The author has received feedback so this has been saved for the next commit-fest: http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold --- Pavel Stehule wrote: > Hello > > On 01/04/2008, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PATCHES] actualized SQL/PSM patch

2008-04-01 Thread Pavel Stehule
Hello On 01/04/2008, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I actualized sql/psm patch. This patch can be downloaded from > > http://www.pgsql.cz/patches/plpgpsm.diff.gz > > The fundamental problem I've got with this patch is that it adds 400K > o

Re: [PATCHES] actualized SQL/PSM patch

2008-04-01 Thread Tom Lane
"Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I actualized sql/psm patch. This patch can be downloaded from > http://www.pgsql.cz/patches/plpgpsm.diff.gz The fundamental problem I've got with this patch is that it adds 400K of new code (and that's just the code, not counting documentation or regre

Re: [PATCHES] actualized SQL/PSM patch

2008-03-04 Thread Bruce Momjian
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at: http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches It will be applied as soon as one of the PostgreSQL committers reviews and approves it. --- Pa

[PATCHES] actualized SQL/PSM patch

2008-03-04 Thread Pavel Stehule
Hello I actualized sql/psm patch. This patch can be downloaded from http://www.pgsql.cz/patches/plpgpsm.diff.gz Documentation is on wiki http://www.pgsql.cz/index.php/SQL/PSM_Manual Regards Pavel Stehule -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org) To make changes to yo