Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-17 Thread Tino Wildenhain
Josh Berkus schrieb: People: How about we draft some criteria for inclusion of a PL in the main distro? Suggestions: 1) The PL must be stable (that is, not capable of crashing the backend) 2) The PL must be buildable only using --with-{lang} and createlang (assuming that the user has the

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-17 Thread Joe Conway
David Fetter wrote: On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 01:17:27PM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote: I promise that the aggregate work required for all coders who know Python to switch to ruby is far far greater than the work required to fix the issues with pl/python. :) Are you certain? See above in re:

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-17 Thread Thomas Hallgren
Josh Berkus wrote: People: How about we draft some criteria for inclusion of a PL in the main distro? Suggestions: 1) The PL must be stable (that is, not capable of crashing the backend) Check. (well, a more humble statement is perhaps to say that any bug that would cause a crash would be

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-17 Thread Marko Kreen
On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 01:46:26PM -0700, David Fetter wrote: On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 11:39:04PM +0300, Marko Kreen wrote: On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 10:38:37AM -0700, David Fetter wrote: If somebody has figured out a way to make a PL/Python (without the U), that's great, but nothing has

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-17 Thread Dave Cramer
As there are two java procedural languages which are available for postgreSQL Josh asked for an explanation as to their differences. They are quite similar in that both of them run the function in a java vm, and are pre-compiled. Neither attempt to compile the code. The biggest difference

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-17 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Dave Cramer wrote: As there are two java procedural languages which are available for postgreSQL Josh asked for an explanation as to their differences. They are quite similar in that both of them run the function in a java vm, and are pre-compiled. Neither attempt to compile the code.

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-17 Thread Thomas Hallgren
Andrew Dunstan wrote: Dave Cramer wrote: As there are two java procedural languages which are available for postgreSQL Josh asked for an explanation as to their differences. They are quite similar in that both of them run the function in a java vm, and are pre-compiled. Neither attempt

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-17 Thread Joshua D. Drake
I find the whole argument that, lack of an untrusted version of the PL means it should be deprecated, crazy. There are plenty of situations where you don't care that the PL is untrusted. Yes you are absolutely correct. However my argument was more than that. It contained: The fact that it

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-17 Thread Dave Cramer
On 17-Aug-05, at 12:40 PM, Thomas Hallgren wrote: Andrew Dunstan wrote: Dave Cramer wrote: As there are two java procedural languages which are available for postgreSQL Josh asked for an explanation as to their differences. They are quite similar in that both of them run the function

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-17 Thread Josh Berkus
Thomas, Dave, I did *NOT* want to start another discussion about what approach is superior. Keep in mind that for us non-Java geeks most of your argument is pure ancient Greek. What I wanted to establish is: potentially, we will have two Java PLs with Postgres. If we do, we need to have a

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-17 Thread Thomas Hallgren
Dave, Some responses inline. As a reaction to what Josh just wrote - Keep in mind that for us non-Java geeks most of your argument is pure ancient Greek - I'll try to talk in generic terms from now on and not mention Java since the difference between our solutions have nothing whatsoever to

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-17 Thread Joe Conway
Joshua D. Drake wrote: I find the whole argument that, lack of an untrusted version of the PL means it should be deprecated, crazy. There are plenty of situations where you don't care that the PL is untrusted. Yes you are absolutely correct. However my argument was more than that. Right.

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-16 Thread Dave Cramer
On 15-Aug-05, at 1:30 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: Hello, I have negotiated with the author of pl/Ruby to release plRuby under the PostgreSQL license. The reason I did this is the following: 1. I felt we needed a truly OO language in core. Why ? Are you truly going to write huge OO

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-16 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Dave Cramer wrote: On 15-Aug-05, at 1:30 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: Hello, I have negotiated with the author of pl/Ruby to release plRuby under the PostgreSQL license. The reason I did this is the following: 1. I felt we needed a truly OO language in core. Why ? Are you truly going

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-16 Thread Josh Berkus
Folks, I think you should take a closer look at PL/Java for the following reasons: Hmmm, this brings up a good point. If we're going to consider PL/Ruby for main distro in 8.2, should we not consider PL/Java as well? -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-16 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Is there a sound reason to believe that pl/Ruby does not have the trusted/untrusted issue ? Sure... it hasn't been found. We can play the it might have or might not have game all day long but it won't get us anywhere. Today, and yesterday pl/Ruby can be run trust/untrusted, pl/python can

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-16 Thread Joshua D. Drake
I think you should take a closer look at PL/Java for the following reasons: 1. The number of followers of the Java language is extremely high and increasing. 2. Oracle and DB2 offers Java as a procedural language. You make transisitions easy. 3. There's a SQL standard for the mapping between

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-16 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Josh Berkus wrote: Folks, I think you should take a closer look at PL/Java for the following reasons: Hmmm, this brings up a good point. If we're going to consider PL/Ruby for main distro in 8.2, should we not consider PL/Java as well? There is one strong reason other than that, I

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-16 Thread Dave Cramer
Well, if we are going to consider pljava for the main distribution, then we should consider pl-j for inclusion as well. Dave On 16-Aug-05, at 11:53 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: Folks, I think you should take a closer look at PL/Java for the following reasons: Hmmm, this brings up a good

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-16 Thread Thomas Hallgren
Joshua, There's some material that explains the inner workings on the gborg.postgresql.org/project/pljava site. Beyond that (and trying it out of course), I'd be more then happy to answer any questions. Regards, Thomas Hallgren Joshua D. Drake wrote: I think you should take a closer look

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-16 Thread Gregory Maxwell
On 8/16/05, Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sure... it hasn't been found. We can play the it might have or might not have game all day long but it won't get us anywhere. Today, and yesterday pl/Ruby can be run trust/untrusted, pl/python can not. Both of these things could be said

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-16 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Dave Cramer wrote: Well, if we are going to consider pljava for the main distribution, then we should consider pl-j for inclusion as well. I believe we should consider both but only include 1. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake Dave On 16-Aug-05, at 11:53 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: Folks, I

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-16 Thread Thomas Hallgren
David Fetter wrote: On a very closely related note, what's the latest on the integration of PL/Java and PL/J? Last time I spoke to Laszlo and Dave about this, we discussed the following solution: - PL/Java should be profiled as a tight Java integration, i.e. Java executes in the same VM

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-16 Thread David Fetter
On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 01:17:27PM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote: On 8/16/05, Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sure... it hasn't been found. We can play the it might have or might not have game all day long but it won't get us anywhere. Today, and yesterday pl/Ruby can be run

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-16 Thread Thomas Hallgren
Joshua D. Drake wrote: Most distributions of Linux (yes I know that there is more than Linux out there) don't ship with Java. They ship with a wanna be, but couldn't be in the next 2 years thing call Gcj. Gcj is OK with PL/Java, albeit slower then the more common JVM's from Sun, IBM, or BEA.

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-16 Thread Marko Kreen
On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 10:38:37AM -0700, David Fetter wrote: If somebody has figured out a way to make a PL/Python (without the U), that's great, but nothing has happened on this front in a couple of years, and Guido said that it was a problem with the language that he wasn't going to fix.

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-16 Thread David Fetter
On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 11:39:04PM +0300, Marko Kreen wrote: On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 10:38:37AM -0700, David Fetter wrote: If somebody has figured out a way to make a PL/Python (without the U), that's great, but nothing has happened on this front in a couple of years, and Guido said that it

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-16 Thread Hannu Krosing
On T, 2005-08-16 at 09:14 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: Is there a sound reason to believe that pl/Ruby does not have the trusted/untrusted issue ? Sure... it hasn't been found. It hasn't been found is a really weak reason for any security assumption, even for a programming language. It

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-16 Thread Gregory Maxwell
On 8/16/05, David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's not. In PL/parlance, trusted means prevented from ever opening a filehandle or a socket, and PL/PythonU is called PL/Python*U* (U for *un*trusted) because it cannot be so prevented. If somebody has figured out a way to make a PL/Python

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-16 Thread David Fetter
On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 05:09:24PM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote: On 8/16/05, David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's not. In PL/parlance, trusted means prevented from ever opening a filehandle or a socket, and PL/PythonU is called PL/Python*U* (U for *un*trusted) because it cannot be so

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-16 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 02:14:46PM -0700, David Fetter wrote: As with an automatic weapon, Perl absolutely *requires* discipline to use properly. Unlike an automatic weapon, Perl is perfectly OK to use day-to-day in civilian life :) What on earth would be the proper use of an automatic

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-16 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Alvaro Herrera wrote: On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 02:14:46PM -0700, David Fetter wrote: As with an automatic weapon, Perl absolutely *requires* discipline to use properly. Unlike an automatic weapon, Perl is perfectly OK to use day-to-day in civilian life :) What on earth would be the proper

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-16 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Alvaro Herrera said: On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 02:14:46PM -0700, David Fetter wrote: As with an automatic weapon, Perl absolutely *requires* discipline to use properly. Unlike an automatic weapon, Perl is perfectly OK to use day-to-day in civilian life :) What on earth would be the proper

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-16 Thread Christopher Petrilli
This seems to have descended into a my programming language is better than your programming language war, which has ceased to be interesting, much less illuminating to the problem at hand. There are two questions, I perceive, critical to making decisions about what goes into the core. While I'm

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-16 Thread Josh Berkus
People: How about we draft some criteria for inclusion of a PL in the main distro? Suggestions: 1) The PL must be stable (that is, not capable of crashing the backend) 2) The PL must be buildable only using --with-{lang} and createlang (assuming that the user has the correct libraries) 3)

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-16 Thread Joshua D. Drake
There are two questions, I perceive, critical to making decisions about what goes into the core. While I'm not a contributing developer, I've worked with PostgreSQL since it was still Stonebraker's child and still use Postquel, and have rolled it inot a lot of production situations, so I'm going

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-16 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
As with an automatic weapon, Perl absolutely *requires* discipline to use properly. Unlike an automatic weapon, Perl is perfectly OK to use day-to-day in civilian life :) What on earth would be the proper use of an automatic weapon? You obviously don't live in the US. Yeah, hunting...

[HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-15 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Hello, I have negotiated with the author of pl/Ruby to release plRuby under the PostgreSQL license. The reason I did this is the following: 1. I felt we needed a truly OO language in core. 2. plPython isn't really moving forward and has the whole trusted/untrusted issue. Now anyone who

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-15 Thread Tom Lane
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have negotiated with the author of pl/Ruby to release plRuby under the PostgreSQL license. The reason I did this is the following: 1. I felt we needed a truly OO language in core. 2. plPython isn't really moving forward and has the whole

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-15 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Hmm. I read this as Problem: not enough hackers to maintain our PL languages. Proposed solution: add more PL languages. Somehow this doesn't seem quite right. Although I see your point, that actually wasn't my point. My point was that I felt we need a good well respected

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-15 Thread Bruce Momjian
I do think plruby would be a nice addition to core. I also assume this is for the 8.2 release, not 8.1. --- Joshua D. Drake wrote: Hmm. I read this as Problem: not enough hackers to maintain our PL

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-15 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Bruce Momjian wrote: I do think plruby would be a nice addition to core. I also assume this is for the 8.2 release, not 8.1. Yes that would be my assumption as well. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240 PostgreSQL

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-15 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Bruce Momjian wrote: I do think plruby would be a nice addition to core. Me too. It needs some work (didn't build out of the box for me against cvs tip). FYI, I have a backburner project to create PL/JS, which would a trusted-only language - JS could actually be quite a nice fit, and

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-15 Thread Tino Wildenhain
Am Montag, den 15.08.2005, 10:30 -0700 schrieb Joshua D. Drake: Hello, I have negotiated with the author of pl/Ruby to release plRuby under the PostgreSQL license. The reason I did this is the following: 1. I felt we needed a truly OO language in core. 2. plPython isn't really moving

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-15 Thread Hannu Krosing
On E, 2005-08-15 at 10:30 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: Hello, I have negotiated with the author of pl/Ruby to release plRuby under the PostgreSQL license. Good! The reason I did this is the following: 1. I felt we needed a truly OO language in core. 2. plPython isn't really moving

Re: [HACKERS] pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

2005-08-15 Thread Thomas Hallgren
Joshua D. Drake wrote: Hello, I have negotiated with the author of pl/Ruby to release plRuby under the PostgreSQL license. The reason I did this is the following: What does everybody think? I think you should take a closer look at PL/Java for the following reasons: 1. The number of