Hannu Krosing wrote:
Ühel kenal päeval, K, 2006-07-12 kell 09:49, kirjutas Kaare Rasmussen:
I thought that the general consensus was that only plpgsql ought to be in
core, the rest should be independent projects.
There should be a Procedural Language section on pgfoundry for all of the
PLs, IMHO, and a README in contrib within core that points to it
(README.procedural_languages, if nothing else) ...
That would be doable if we had a stable language API.
As i understand it, we still dont. And even more - most of the changes
to API come frome the needs of those (new) languages
There is in effect no API at all, other than what is available to all
backend modules. If someone wants to create an API which will be both
sufficiently stable and sufficiently complete to meet the needs of the
various PLs (especially, as Hannu rightly observes, any new PLs that
come along) then we can revisit this question. Until then I suggest
that it is at best premature. I am not even sure such a thing is
Also there is this: speaking as someone who actually does some work in
this area, I very much appreciate having the eagle eyes of people like
Tom, Neil and Joe on what's going on, and keeping things on the straight
and narrow. I at least would feel lots less comfortable about
maintaining things without such help.
The Postgres hacker community is small. I am not sure there is an
adequate pool of people who will maintain the momentum of each
sub-project that we might choose to orphan. If we had thousands of eager
code cutters it might be different, but we don't, really.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly