Re: plPHP and plRuby

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Subject: Re: plPHP and plRuby
Date: 2006-07-17 15:37:18
Message-ID: 200607171737.18889.peter_e@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> But the reasons that applied to PL/Java (masses of non-C code was the
> main one) probably don't apply in these 2 cases.

I don't think it's the amount of non-C code; it's the amount of code
that no one understands. Plus, an argument *for* inclusion was build
farm coverage, which I understand will be solved in a different way,
applicable to all external modules. Another argument was buzzword
compliance, which doesn't apply to these two new candidates. So in
summary, while I have not seen any valid reason for these inclusions,
there continue to be some against it.

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2006-07-17 15:39:55 Re: plPHP and plRuby
Previous Message Bort, Paul 2006-07-17 15:06:50 Re: automatic system info tool?