Re: plPHP -- sort of an announcement.. but not commercial

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>
Cc: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, Ron Johnson <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: plPHP -- sort of an announcement.. but not commercial
Date: 2003-08-06 07:52:07
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.56.0308052200300.928@krusty.credativ.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

scott.marlowe writes:

> Do we need official permission to call the language plPHP by the way?

Can someone explain to me why language handler modules for PostgreSQL are
always called "PL/Language"? Consider if someone wrote a language binding
for Scheme, then calling that "procedural language Scheme" sounds like an
insult to me.

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mario Weilguni 2003-08-06 07:56:32 Re: pg_xlog question
Previous Message Shridhar Daithankar 2003-08-06 07:32:29 Re: pg_xlog question