| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: "stored procedures" |
| Date: | 2011-04-22 16:57:22 |
| Message-ID: | 4DB1B372.9090303@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 04/22/2011 12:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> You could possibly lobotomize plpgsql down to a small number of
> datatypes and operators that are known not to ever do anything more
> interesting than palloc() and elog(), but IMO the usefulness would be
> low and the fragility high. It'd be better to give the task to an
> interpreter that was never built to depend on a SQL environment in the
> first place. Thus my thought about perl etc.
>
It's not clear to me what the other interpreter would actually be doing.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-04-22 18:28:20 | Re: "stored procedures" |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2011-04-22 16:49:24 | Re: "stored procedures" |