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

Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?

From: "Marko Kreen" <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Asko Oja" <ascoja(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?
Date: 2008-07-28 16:48:04
Message-ID: e51f66da0807280948q793f8979hbc03ec3b5f42f951@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 7/28/08, Asko Oja <ascoja(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>  Would capability to do remote procedure calls useful addition to PostgreSQL
> feature set?

I agree with Tom/Simon on the topic of builtin remote calls - if there
is a plan to implement CREATE REMOTE TABLE/VIEW (builtin remote views)
then it should be quite easy to extend the implementation to functions:
CREATE REMOTE FUNCTION.  Thus making the PL version of remote calls
redundant.

Although that seems a far way off.

Btw, one thing that could be immediately useful would be to extract the
connection defining part from SQL-MED and add that to core, so that dblink,
plproxy and dbi-link could share that.  But that needs someone who has
ability to process a 500+ page standard.

-- 
marko

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2008-07-28 17:00:09
Subject: Re: Protocol 3, Execute, maxrows to return, impact?
Previous:From: Stephen R. van den BergDate: 2008-07-28 16:45:41
Subject: Re: Protocol 3, Execute, maxrows to return, impact?

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