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

Re: Anonymous code blocks vs CREATE LANGUAGE

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Anonymous code blocks vs CREATE LANGUAGE
Date: 2009-09-22 17:57:07
Message-ID: 4AB90FF3.4050206@dunslane.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane 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?
>   

works for me.

After this is committed I will work to provide such an animal for plperl 
- we already have code that does something similar for the utf8 bug, so 
it should be fairly simple.

> Also, I'm pretty strongly tempted to get rid of the obsolete LANCOMPILER
> option while at it, and thereby remove that keyword.  That option hasn't
> even been documented since 7.1, and didn't do anything useful for
> several versions before that.  So it's pretty hard to believe anyone's
> still using it.
>
> 			
>   

+1.


cheers

andrew

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jaime CasanovaDate: 2009-09-22 17:59:52
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Largeobject access controls
Previous:From: David FetterDate: 2009-09-22 17:56:32
Subject: Re: Anonymous code blocks vs CREATE LANGUAGE

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