Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Mon, 17 May 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>>
>> >
>> > plPHP and plPerlNG both belong on pgfoundry, not in the core distribution
>> > ...
>>
>> Uhhh?? Are you ripping out all core pls then? plPerlNG is supposed to
>> replace plPerl, I was talking with Bruce and he seemed to think that (as
>> long as the code was good enough) that we could incorporate plPHP???
>
> That is the plan ... unless someone knows a reason why they can't be built
> independently of the core? ecpg relies on the grammar files in core, but
> as far as I knew (please correct me if I'm wrong) the pls only rely on
> headers and libraries that get installed ...
They are not as independant as one might think. The core support for set
returning functions is required before a PL can do it. Same was with
cursors and same will be with subtransactions being the base for
exception handling. People have been struggling with unloadable shared
objects from another version due to elog changes, I can't imagine what
kind of support horror we're creating with this now.
The much I am for pulling stuff that does not belong into core, doing it
just for the fun of cleaning up or trimming doesn't do. One of the major
functions of CVS is that one can tag collections of revisions that
together build a release, a "known to be working snapshot of file
revisions". If we completely lose the ability to tell what version of
what PL, client interface or extension works with what version of the
backend, we're losing some important detail here.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #