Re: pltcl_*mod commands are broken on Solaris 10

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pltcl_*mod commands are broken on Solaris 10
Date: 2008-07-23 15:43:50
Message-ID: 16136.1216827830@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM> writes:
> Tom Lane napsal(a):
>> Actually it looks like it's been a very long time since these scripts
>> got any love anyway. There's no reason anymore to split modules into
>> multiple rows (not since TOAST...) and they're not schema-safe either.
>> Anybody feel like cleaning them up? Or should we leave 'em as-is
>> for compatibility reasons?

> Just a dumb question, does we need this functionality? Does anybody use it?

Well, autoloading Tcl scripts is an extremely standard thing to do in
the Tcl world. It makes sense to me for pltcl to provide a way of
autoloading code out of the database instead of some random search path
or other --- particularly for trusted pltcl, which shouldn't allow
access to the server filesystem at all.

Whether these particular scripts are the best possible implementation of
the concept is another argument, of course. But I wouldn't agree with
just ripping 'em out. Note that my complaints above don't bear on
functionality, at least not unless someone is working in an environment
where the search_path varies a lot. So the lack of maintenance effort
doesn't indicate that they're not getting used.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Sabino Mullane 2008-07-23 15:46:58 Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-07-23 15:19:21 Re: [PATCH] "\ef <function>" in psql