| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: plPHP and plRuby |
| Date: | 2006-07-17 15:37:18 |
| Message-ID: | 200607171737.18889.peter_e@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> But the reasons that applied to PL/Java (masses of non-C code was the
> main one) probably don't apply in these 2 cases.
I don't think it's the amount of non-C code; it's the amount of code
that no one understands. Plus, an argument *for* inclusion was build
farm coverage, which I understand will be solved in a different way,
applicable to all external modules. Another argument was buzzword
compliance, which doesn't apply to these two new candidates. So in
summary, while I have not seen any valid reason for these inclusions,
there continue to be some against it.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-07-17 15:39:55 | Re: plPHP and plRuby |
| Previous Message | Bort, Paul | 2006-07-17 15:06:50 | Re: automatic system info tool? |