| From: | "Alex Hunsaker" <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "David Fetter" <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, "Hannu Krosing" <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net>, "PG Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pre-MED |
| Date: | 2008-11-04 03:08:06 |
| Message-ID: | 34d269d40811031908m7340cde2g50c85e70a9465b5c@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 05:16, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
>> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:23:36PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I would argue that it's already designed wrong if there's need for
>>> PL-specific implementation effort.
>
>> I'm not sure how else to do this. The current implementation returns
>> char *, which doesn't translate uniformly into the PLs.
>
> Surely they all have a way to call a SQL function that returns text.
Sure but when you call that function you get *that* functions
qualifier. And unless there already is a way to grab the "parent"
query qualifiers, the PL specific hacks seem not so bad and very
similar to how we have to build trigger arguments for every PL
already.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alex Hunsaker | 2008-11-04 03:18:51 | Re: auto_explain contrib moudle |
| Previous Message | Alex Hunsaker | 2008-11-04 03:02:30 | Re: pre-MED |