Re: actualized SQL/PSM patch

From: "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: actualized SQL/PSM patch
Date: 2008-04-03 06:09:31
Message-ID: 162867790804022309p2f5d02fcsdb9e53a45fa0611a@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Hello

>
> I'm not against having SQL/PSM support. I'm just saying I'm not
> willing to support two copies of plpgsql to do it.
>
> regards, tom lane
>

I understand it well. Pending development of plpgpsm I respected
unbreakability plpgsql. So I can move duplicate parts to separate
files and I'll do it.

I thinking about new directory structure (some like)

pl/sqlsp/ .. sql Stored Procedures
pl/sqlsp/utils
pl/sqlsp/plpgsql - only plpgpsm code
pl/sqlsp/plpgpsm - only plpgsql code

Regards
Pavel Stehule

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Volkan YAZICI 2008-04-03 06:18:31 Re: Configurable Penalty Costs for Levenshtein
Previous Message Zoltan Boszormenyi 2008-04-03 05:52:25 Re: TRUNCATE TABLE with IDENTITY