From: "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Pavel Stehule <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] proposal for PL packages for 8.3.
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 11:27:01 -0500

On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 06:34:16AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >  Is it would be nice , if packages have been ;
> >  1. Package level variables (Public variables)
> is very hard for imlementation, and it's actually impossible. Needs large
> changes in code
> >  2. Package member level variables (Private variable)
> I plan it, in every PL language
> >  3. Public and private package members
> ?? I see sence only for functions. I don't wont supply schemas.
> >4. Syntax must be as closer as plpgsql (declaration, assingment etc)
> >rather than any syntax that we have to learn :-)
> PostgreSQL support other languages than PL/pgSQL. We need universal syntax
> for plperl and others too

Why? Don't those other languages have support of their own for this?

If we try and make this completely cross-language I fear we'll end up
with something so watered down and obtuse that it'll be useless. I think
it makes much more sense to design something for plpgsql and only
commonize whatever it makes sense to.

What I know, plperl has shared variables. Missing shared functions and loader for initialisation of variables. I don't agree with partial solution only for plpgsql. It can generate more limits in future.


Citite se osamele? Poznejte nekoho vyjmecneho diky

---------------------------(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