-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:55:45 -0400
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.
That is likely because everyone knew he was working on it. Consider
this my +1 for pl/psm support.
> The duplicativeness of the code with plpgsql doesn't make this
> prospect any more pleasant, either.
However, I do agree with you here. I would much prefer it be cleaned up
into its own space.
> The idea would be a lot easier to swallow if the code were refactored
> to avoid the duplication with plpgsql.
Joshua D. Drake
The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2008-04-03 04:34:54|
|Subject: Re: actualized SQL/PSM patch|
|Previous:||From: Gregory Stark||Date: 2008-04-03 02:23:25|
|Subject: Re: Consistent \d commands in psql|