| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: plpgsql extension install nitpick |
| Date: | 2011-07-03 13:30:01 |
| Message-ID: | 1309699801.7252.4.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On lör, 2011-07-02 at 23:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> We just went through an exercise to suppress comments on functions
> that are meant to be accessed through operators, and this seems like
> much the same kind of situation. I think it will not be long before
> COMMENT ON PROCEDURAL LANGUAGE is a historical curiosity, because
> everybody will ship their PLs as extensions and the comment on the
> extension will be the thing to look at. IOW, the fact that there even
> is a database object type "procedural language" will soon be an
> implementation detail of interest only to PL authors.
Well, you still write functions in the language and refer to it in the
SQL commands, so it is reasonable to know about the language as opposed
to the extension it is in. You wouldn't remove man pages just because
an RPM package description exists.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2011-07-03 14:23:15 | Re: %ENV warnings during builds |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-07-03 13:01:05 | Re: %ENV warnings during builds |