From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tim Bunce <Tim(dot)Bunce(at)pobox(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Feature patch 1 for plperl [PATCH] |
Date: | 2010-01-10 00:14:12 |
Message-ID: | 4B491BD4.2080204@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On fre, 2010-01-08 at 15:01 +0000, Tim Bunce wrote:
>
>> I didn't get any significant feedback from the earlier draft so here's
>> the finished 'feature patch 1' for plperl.
>>
>
> I think it would help if you could split this up into about 6 to 10
> single-feature patches.
>
I think that's a bit excessive. I'd suggest three patches:
* the new utility functions (quote_literal, decode_bytea etc.) These
should be fairly uncontroversial, but account for a large part of
the patch volume.
* the code relating to library load, interpreter initialization and
termination
* the remainder (function naming, better error checking, enabling
use/require if a lib is already loaded, cleanup and optimization)
We could ask Tim to break up the last, but they are all fairly small
items, and I at least wouldn't be bothered by having them combined. And
having to handle 6 to 10 patches all hitting the same body of code
doesn't sound terrible pleasant either.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2010-01-10 00:19:36 | Re: Initial refactoring of plperl.c - updated |
Previous Message | Tim Bunce | 2010-01-10 00:03:33 | Re: Initial refactoring of plperl.c - updated |