From: | David Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |
Date: | 2014-09-02 03:42:07 |
Message-ID: | CAKFQuwbaERqT_bUxKp8VpzDNJs9R7gyZhq8z6ouzMBwd=b5ESg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 09/02/2014 09:40 AM, David G Johnston wrote:
> > Random thought as I wrote that: how about considering how pl/pgsql
> > functionality can be generalize so that it is a database API that
> > another language can call? In that way the server would drive the core
> > functionality and the language would simply be an interpreter that
> > enforces its specific notion of acceptable syntax.
>
> That's pretty much what we already have with the SPI and procedural
> language handler infrastructure. PL/Perl, PL/Python, etc exist because
> we have this.
>
> What do you see as missing from the current infrastructure? What can't
> be done that should be able to be done in those languages?
>
>
Yet pl/pgsql does not have to use SPI-interface type calls to interact
with PostgreSQL at the SQL level...
I don't have an answer to your questions but the one I'm asking is whether
a particular language could hide all of the SPI stuff behind some custom
syntax so that it in effect looks similar to what pl/pgsql does today? Or,
more to the point, does pl/pgsql use the same SPI interface behind the
scenes as PL/Perl or does it have its own special interface?
David J.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2014-09-02 03:46:43 | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |
Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2014-09-02 03:41:00 | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |