Re: [HACKERS] tuple return from function

From: jwieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck)
To: djackson(at)cpsgroup(dot)com (Jackson, DeJuan)
Cc: maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us, jwieck(at)debis(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] tuple return from function
Date: 1998-08-13 19:20:49
Message-ID: m0z72vZ-000EBPC@orion.SAPserv.Hamburg.dsh.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> I personally am willing to wait another month for PL/pgSQL w/returned
> tuples if it means I don't have to wait another 6 months for it. I
> would also be willing to do work toward that end, if anyone needs the
> help (nobody's taken me up on the offer for help yet).

I just sent the initial version to Bruce to be added to the
source tree. It is without tuple return (except for triggers)
since this requires changes to PostgreSQL itself, which I
think would be better for 6.5. Also the changes recently
discussed about the extended syntax for CREATE TRIGGER and
the ()'s on CREATE FUNCTION should be delayed for 6.5.

As soon as it's in the CVS, I don't call it my baby any
longer. It's my child then and children go out to the world
to learn things I cannot teach them. But I'm still
responsible for my child.

There is currently a point where your offered help is
appreciated. It lacks a CASE ... WHEN ... END CASE; which
would be very useful. I have some ideas already how to
implement it but it would be nice if others get familiar with
the code too.

> And I agree about the rewrite stuff. If it's a choice between rewrite
> and PL/pgSQL I say rewrite. But, I'd like to have my cake and eat it
> too.
> -DEJ

I think there is no choice any longer. I'll start now
removing all the non-instead rule stuff to make the rule
system as reliable as can.

For 6.5 I want to have the suggested uid/euid model for
views, functions and triggers and maybe ACL's on functions
too. And the tuples for functions fixed. When this is done,
PL/pgSQL is absolutely safe and can be a real trusted
language. This is IMHO required to incorporate it into the
backend itself and install it in the template1 database while
bootstrapping.

>
> P.S. And while your at it, Jan, if you could drop in syntax for GROUP
> creation/removal I'd be ecstatic. But I do understand the need to eat.
>

No priority for me for 6.4. But will get priority for 6.5
when doing the ACL and uid/euid stuff.

Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#======================================== jwieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) #

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Vadim Mikheev 1998-08-14 02:01:05 Re: AW: AW: [HACKERS] Rule system
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 1998-08-13 17:31:54 Re: [HACKERS] tuple return from function