Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] plPHP in core?

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Hans-Jürgen Schönig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>
Cc: "Psql_General (E-mail)" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>,PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] plPHP in core?
Date: 2005-04-02 15:33:31
Message-ID: 424EBB4B.3000708@commandprompt.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackers
Hans-Jürgen Schönig wrote:

> In the past couple of years a lot of stuff has been removed from the 
> core - even the ODBC driver (which is ways more important than, let's 
> say, PL/PHP) has been removed from the core - so why should a new PL 
> be integrated now if considerably more important components will 
> remain external?

ODBC is a client side driver. It is not a server side driver. It does 
not require PostgreSQL to be installed.

plPHP, plPerl, etc... all require PostgreSQL, they are a part of 
PostgreSQL whether in core
or not.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake



>
>     Best regards,
>
>         Hans
>
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>>
>>> I'm not convinced that PLs are more tied to the core than say 
>>> OpenFTS, and if we can't maintain that kind of thing externally, 
>>> then this whole extension thing sounds like a failure to me.
>>
>>
>>
>> It's *possible* to do it.  Whether it's a net savings of effort is
>> questionable.  For instance, I've had to hack plperl and plpgsql
>> over the past couple days to support OUT parameters, and the only
>> reason I didn't have to hack the other two standard PLs is that they
>> are a few features shy of a load already.  I'm pretty sure pl/r and
>> pl/java will need changes to support this feature too.  If they were in
>> core CVS then I'd consider it part of my responsibility to fix 'em
>> ... but they aren't, so it isn't my problem, so it falls on Joe and
>> Thomas to get up to speed on what I've been doing and do likewise.
>> Is that really a win?
>>
>> The point here is really that we keep finding reasons to, if not
>> flat-out change the interface to PLs, at least expand their
>> responsibilities.  Not to push it too hard, but we still have only
>> one PL with a validator procedure, which IIRC was your own addition
>> to that API.  How come they don't all have validators?
>>
>>             regards, tom lane
>>
>> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>> TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>
>
>


-- 
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com - http://www.commandprompt.com
PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL


Attachment: jd.vcf
Description: text/x-vcard (285 bytes)

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2005-04-02 15:34:14
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] plPHP in core?
Previous:From: Paul TillotsonDate: 2005-04-02 15:32:13
Subject: Re: Debugging deadlocks

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2005-04-02 15:34:14
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] plPHP in core?
Previous:From: Paul TillotsonDate: 2005-04-02 15:32:13
Subject: Re: Debugging deadlocks

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group