| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: actualized SQL/PSM patch |
| Date: | 2008-04-03 04:34:54 |
| Message-ID: | 47F45E6E.1050706@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
>> The fundamental problem I've got with this patch is that it adds 400K
>> of new code (and that's just the code, not counting documentation or
>> regression tests) that we'll have to maintain, to obtain a feature that
>> so far as I've heard there is precisely zero demand for.
>>
>
> We have a customer that wants to use it as part of a MySQL-to-Postgres
> migration.
>
>
Using an implementation like this? I suspect anyone wanting to migrate
their existing SQL/PSM stuff to Postgres will be less than impressed by
our "function body as a string" mechanism.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-04-03 04:57:11 | Re: actualized SQL/PSM patch |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2008-04-03 02:34:00 | Re: actualized SQL/PSM patch |