Re: [HACKERS] Coping with 'C' vs 'newC' function language namesh
On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 09:32:43AM -0600, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote: On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 04:16:26PM +1100, Philip Warner wrote: Create Module foo_mod from library 'path-to-lib'; Phil - be careful with the nomenclature. We've got another naming collision, here. SQL9[29] talk about modules, which may or may not be related to what your suggesting here. Do you know any url's where the SQL* standards could be looked up? Mark Hollomon's idea was to use 'package' not 'module', but ofcourse it would be nice to be SQL* conforming. -- marko
Re: [HACKERS] Coping with 'C' vs 'newC' function language namesh
At 05:51 PM 11/16/00 +0200, 'Marko Kreen' wrote: On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 09:32:43AM -0600, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote: On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 04:16:26PM +1100, Philip Warner wrote: Create Module foo_mod from library 'path-to-lib'; Phil - be careful with the nomenclature. We've got another naming collision, here. SQL9[29] talk about modules, which may or may not be related to what your suggesting here. Do you know any url's where the SQL* standards could be looked up? I have a copy of the SQL92 draft (the one that's circulated among this group in the past) at dsl-dhogaza.pacifier.net. Just use anonymous ftp, it's in the pub directory with an obvious name (sql1992.txt???) - Don Baccus, Portland OR [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at http://donb.photo.net.
Re: [HACKERS] Coping with 'C' vs 'newC' function language namesh
At 23:42 15/11/00 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: To answer another misconception that I saw in this thread: : The old language names "internal" and "C" will continue to refer to : functions with the old calling convention. We should deprecate : old-style functions because of their portability problems, but the : support for them will only be one small function handler routine, : so we can leave them in place for as long as necessary. My question is can we drop newC and use just plain C in 7.2 or 7.3? I plan to work on a a proposal for a (hopefully) version independant function manager interface; the idea behind the proposal is to allow PGSQL to query the modules for information about the functions, but calling a single known entry point. The information stored in the database relation would be substantially reduced, and the backends would load the module then enquire about the functions, storing the results in memory. The kind of SQL required would be: Create Function foo(int4, int4) from library 'path-to-lib'; and possibly, Create Module foo_mod from library 'path-to-lib'; The idea being to only store whe function signature and enough details to get to the info-function. If 'Create Module' were allowed, then it would automatically create appropriate function definitions when the statement was executed. The info-function would return data in a struct passed from the backend, and part of the struct would include version information. The backend would then be responsible for handling new old protocols. Philip Warner| __---_ Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd. |/ - \ (A.B.N. 75 008 659 498) | /(@) __---_ Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81 | _ \ Fax: (+61) 0500 83 82 82 | ___ | Http://www.rhyme.com.au |/ \| |---- PGP key available upon request, | / and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371 |/
