Tom Lane wrote: > Are you seriously suggesting that it's a good idea for the single > language name "java" to mean different things at different > installations? I can't believe that that wouldn't lead to chaos.
There is a standard for the SQL integration of a "java" language, and I don't see why there can't be multiple implementations of that same specification. It in fact appears that there are. Of course we would not want the programming interfaces to differ, but they don't have to. > In any case, "java" has not been put forward as one of the template > entries, and as long as we don't accept a template for it, we have > not made the situation any worse. Hmm, Thomas Hallgren sent in a template using "java" as name and you answered "OK", so we're already there if it's already committed. > Yes, I am assuming that, and I challenge you to supply examples of > PLs that won't require at least a recompile before there's any hope > of their working on 8.1. There is no hope of that, but a mere recompilation does not change the validator or the schema or any other property that may be under consideration. The current code will force a *version* upgrade of all PLs with every PostgreSQL upgrade. I need to download new code and deal with it. That is currently not required. And considering the general breakage of PLs out there, I don't think it's acceptable to require it. What if the new PL/R also requires a new R? What if the new R requires a new GCC? We don't know that, we can't control that, we should not interfere in that. I'm not making this up; these problems are real (although not necessarily in PL/R). -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq