Hannu Krosing wrote:
Ühel kenal päeval, K, 2006-07-12 kell 09:49, kirjutas Kaare Rasmussen:
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) ...
I thought that the general consensus was that only plpgsql ought to be in core, the rest should be independent projects.

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 actually possible.

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

Reply via email to