| From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Gould <dg(at)illustra(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Brett McCormick <brett(at)work(dot)chicken(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org, pgsql-questions(at)hub(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] regular expressions from hell |
| Date: | 1998-06-01 14:42:21 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.3.96.980601103844.448W-100000@hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 31 May 1998, David Gould wrote:
> >
> > Not to mention the fact that if perl (or mod_perl) is already running
> > (and you're using a shared libperl), the library is already loaded.
>
> Ok, my vote is to build regexes into the pgsql binary or into a .so that
> we distribute. There should be no need to have perl installed on a system
> to run postgresql. If we are going to extend the language to improve on
> the very lame sql92 like clause, we need to have it be part of the system
> that can be counted on, not something you might or might not have depending
> on what else is installed.
Odd question here, but how many systems nowadays *don't* have Perl
installed that would be running PostgreSQL? IMHO, perl is an invaluable
enough tool that I can't imagine a site not running it *shrug*
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas G. Lockhart | 1998-06-01 15:08:08 | Re: [HACKERS] duplicate oids in pg_proc |
| Previous Message | Brett McCormick | 1998-06-01 14:27:50 | Re: [HACKERS] regular expressions from hell |