On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 01:50:45PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > I'm going through the anonymous-code-blocks patch now. There are
> > some things missing, notably the ability to create a language with
> > an anonymous-code-block handler. The only way you can do it is to
> > have a pg_pltemplate entry, which is certainly not good enough for
> > languages not distributed with the core. The obvious solution is
> > to add an optional clause "INLINE function_name" to CREATE
> > LANGUAGE, paralleling the VALIDATOR clause. This'd require adding
> > INLINE as a keyword. (I assume it could be an unreserved keyword,
> > but haven't actually tried yet.) Does anyone object to that plan,
> > or want to propose a different keyword?
> Should we consider another generic options syntax, while we're on a
> roll? In the long run, that's the best way to avoid having a
> zillion keywords.
> CREATE LANGUAGE name (TRUSTED, PROCEDURAL, HANDLER x, VALIDATOR y,
> INLINE z);
I understand that some PLs are OO, functional, etc., but for our
purposes, isn't PROCEDURAL just noise?
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2009-09-22 17:57:07|
|Subject: Re: Anonymous code blocks vs CREATE LANGUAGE|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2009-09-22 17:53:22|
|Subject: Re: [PATCH] Largeobject access controls|