From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | a_dursun(at)hotmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: proposal for PL packages for 8.3. |
Date: | 2006-08-09 16:27:01 |
Message-ID: | 20060809162701.GI40481@pervasive.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 06:34:16AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > Is it would be nice , if packages have been ;
>
> > 1. Package level variables (Public variables)
>
> is very hard for imlementation, and it's actually impossible. Needs large
> changes in code
> > 2. Package member level variables (Private variable)
>
> I plan it, in every PL language
> > 3. Public and private package members
> ?? I see sence only for functions. I don't wont supply schemas.
>
> >4. Syntax must be as closer as plpgsql (declaration, assingment etc)
> >rather than any syntax that we have to learn :-)
> PostgreSQL support other languages than PL/pgSQL. We need universal syntax
> for plperl and others too
Why? Don't those other languages have support of their own for this?
If we try and make this completely cross-language I fear we'll end up
with something so watered down and obtuse that it'll be useless. I think
it makes much more sense to design something for plpgsql and only
commonize whatever it makes sense to.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-08-09 16:27:26 | Re: 8.2 features status |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-08-09 16:25:18 | new job |