From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: multiple CREATE FUNCTION AS items for PLs |
Date: | 2012-12-28 08:24:30 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRAV864t9_Rp6031caWBKvoBtysEtzXHSu7M-Sj5xc9=0A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2012/12/28 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>:
> On Mon, 2012-12-17 at 16:34 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Yes, this would be a good solution for some applications, but the only
>> way I can think of to manage the compatibility issue is to invent some
>> function attribute system like
>>
>> CREATE FUNCTION ... OPTIONS (call_convention 'xyz')
>
> An alternative that has some amount of precedent in the Python world
> would be to use comment pragmas, like this:
>
> CREATE FUNCTION foo(a,b,c) AS $$
> # plpython: module
> import x
> from __future__ import nex_cool_feature
>
> def helper_function(x):
> ...
>
> def __pg_main__(a,b,c):
> defined function body here
>
> $$;
>
> The source code parser would look for this string on, say, the first two
> lines, and then decide which way to process the source text.
>
> This way we could get this done fairly easily without any new
> infrastructure outside the language handler.
this concept looks like more stronger and cleaner
+1
I thing so same idea is used in PL/v8
Regards
Pavel
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2012-12-28 10:04:29 | Re: Proposal: Store "timestamptz" of database creation on "pg_database" |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-12-28 08:15:08 | Re: multiple CREATE FUNCTION AS items for PLs |