Re: actualized SQL/PSM patch

From: "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: actualized SQL/PSM patch
Date: 2008-04-02 04:54:18
Message-ID: 162867790804012154j77ce0094vec62d97c43346315@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Hello

On 01/04/2008, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> 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
> regression tests) that we'll have to maintain, to obtain a feature that
> so far as I've heard there is precisely zero demand for.
>
> The duplicativeness of the code with plpgsql doesn't make this prospect
> any more pleasant, either.
>
> The idea would be a lot easier to swallow if the code were refactored
> to avoid the duplication with plpgsql.
>

This is long run and needs hard reorganisation of plpgsql code. And
moving some plpgsql code to core. But I don't expect so plpgpsm code
can be less than 200KB.

Regards
Pavel Stehule

> regards, tom lane
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Albe Laurenz 2008-04-02 07:11:59 Re: Improve shutdown during online backup
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2008-04-02 02:12:05 Re: script binaries renaming