Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > I don't see any strong reason for enforcing that as policy, if the > > language maintainer wants an entry. (But is Alvaro the maintainer of > > pl/php?)
Yes, I have started work on PL/php and currently I'm the only maintainer. I must add that the code is far from ready yet, but I expect that by the time 8.2 comes around it will be in much better shape. (To the point that it doesn't take a single-line function to crash the server, for example.) > > My recollection is that we identified some pros and cons of > > having listings for non-core languages, and decided it should be up > > to the language maintainers to decide what they want. > > Perhaps Alvaro can identify the reasons why he wants this done and then > we can determine whether it's a good idea. Well, it's one step less for installing the language. Users just install the library and issue the appropiate CREATE LANGUAGE call; no need to mess with specifying the handler/validator function name. (Which is not a very big deal, granted, but it's precisely the reason why pg_pltemplate was invented.) I just realized that this is the first out-of-core language for which this has been proposed. I wonder why Joe Conway didn't submit an entry for PL/R. (Is there any other language out there?) -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
