"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The fundamental problem I've got with this patch is that it adds 400K >> of new code (and that's just the code, not counting documentation or >> regression tests) that we'll have to maintain, to obtain a feature >> that so far as I've heard there is precisely zero demand for.
> That is likely because everyone knew he was working on it. By "everyone" I suppose you mean the dozen or three people who are paying close attention to who's doing what in PG development. The above argument is hogwash, really. If SQL/PSM support were so widely desired as to justify a code addition of this size, then the archives would be littered with requests for it. Try to find some. (As a reasonable comparison point for what it takes to justify a large code addition, compare that to the number of times that text search requests show up --- most of them coming from people who don't know who Oleg and Teodor are.) I'm not against having SQL/PSM support. I'm just saying I'm not willing to support two copies of plpgsql to do it. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches