Prev: Time travel on the buildfarm
Next: [HACKERS] Reason why set-value functions not allowed in GREATEST(), etc?
From: Alvaro Herrera on 22 Feb 2010 09:42
Pavel Stehule escribi�:
> Hello,
>
> * Now I am working on migration of plpgpsm to plpgsql 9.0 base. I hope
> so I understand SQL/PSM well so I am able to write production quality
> implementation. If you like, I can integrate it to core. It can share
> about 40-50% code with plpgpsm. The behave of plpgpsm is same as
> plpgsql - without some plpgsql's historical issues (about FOUND, about
> NULL and record type). SQL/PSM is litlle bit richer language. Now we
> have not any wide used runtime so I don't thinking about rewriting.
> Maybe we can rewrite these PL language for parrot or lua runtime in
> future. But this step isn't necessary - people hasn't performance
> problems with PL based on PL runtime.

How do you plan to go about code sharing? I'm wondering if we're going
to have src/pl/common or something like that. Since there's a huge
amount of common code it doesn't make any sense to keep it duplicate.

Also, AFAIR that was the main rejection point for the plpgpsm patch last
time around, so it would be good to discuss this thoroughly.

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Time travel on the buildfarm
Next: [HACKERS] Reason why set-value functions not allowed in GREATEST(), etc?