Re: I propose killing PL/Tcl's "modules" infrastructure

From: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info>
Subject: Re: I propose killing PL/Tcl's "modules" infrastructure
Date: 2017-03-01 22:31:36
Message-ID: c1d9adea-f80c-4ea7-d8a4-efdceb277bb2@BlueTreble.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2/27/17 2:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> + SET pltcl.start_proc = 'no_such_function';
> + select tcl_int4add(1, 2);
> + ERROR: function no_such_function() does not exist

Can the error message be more explicit somehow? Otherwise people will be
quite confused as to where no_such_function() is coming from.

<begin creature-feep>
BTW, I'd think this functionality would be valuable for every PL. Maybe
it's worth adding formal support for it to pg_language et all and leave
it up to each language to decide whether it's supported or not? Multiple
init functions might be useful too, similar to how we support multiple
hook functions (though presumably a field of regproc[] is a better way
to handle that...)

I'm also wondering if there'd be value to supporting code that runs on
each function invocation.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Nasby 2017-03-01 22:38:56 Re: Two questions about Postgres parser
Previous Message Petr Jelinek 2017-03-01 22:20:57 Re: logical decoding of two-phase transactions