Re: Anonymous code blocks vs CREATE LANGUAGE

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?

Cheers,
David.
--
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