Re: new procedural language - PL/R

Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
>>2) Knowing the trend to move stuff *out* of the PostgreSQL source tarball, and
>>assuming plr is released under GPL, is there any chance that it would be
>>accepted into src/pl or contrib, or should I start a gborg project (I'd prefer
>>if it could at least live in contrib)?
>
> I think we'd have to insist on gborg. The only reason there are any
> non-BSD-license items left in contrib is that I haven't finished my TODO
> item to get their licenses changed or remove 'em.

Thanks for the confirmation. That's what I suspected.

>>If I am somehow able to release it
>>under a BSD license, would that change the answer (if so, I'll at least ask
>>the r-devel list about LGPL on the shared library)?
>
> BSD would be good. I agree that it'll be a pain in the neck to
> maintain a PL that is not in the main tree, so I'd support accepting it
> if we can get the license right.

OK -- I'll see what they have to say about it over on r-devel.

>>3) The only major feature not yet developed is the ability to handle triggers.
>>Any strong feelings on whether this is necessary for a first release?
>
> No. I'm not sure you'd really need triggers written in R ever ;-)

Yeah, that's what I figured too.

Thanks for the feedback!

Joe