"Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes:
> I thinking about new directory structure (some like)

> pl/sqlsp/ .. sql Stored Procedures
> pl/sqlsp/utils
> pl/sqlsp/plpgsql - only plpgpsm code
> pl/sqlsp/plpgpsm - only plpgsql code

Maybe "common" instead of "utils"?

Also, where did "plpgpsm" come from? This is supposed to be a standard,
so there is no reason to designate it as PG-specific. plpsm seems the
right name.

regards, tom lane

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

Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >
> >> The fundamental problem I've got with this patch is that it adds 400K
> >> of new code (and that's just the code, not counting documentation or
> >> regression tests) that we'll have to maintain, to obtain a feature that
> >> so far as I've heard there is precisely zero demand for.
> >>
> >
> > We have a customer that wants to use it as part of a MySQL-to-Postgres
> > migration.
> >
> >
>
> Using an implementation like this? I suspect anyone wanting to migrate
> their existing SQL/PSM stuff to Postgres will be less than impressed by
> our "function body as a string" mechanism.

What is your point? That because of the $$ strings they might as well
rewrite the whole thing in PL/pgSQL.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

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

Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> > ... I suspect anyone wanting to migrate
> > their existing SQL/PSM stuff to Postgres will be less than impressed by
> > our "function body as a string" mechanism.
>
> Yeah, that's the other little problem with claiming standards-compliance
> as a reason for doing this. We'd really have to suck it up and figure
> some other way of parsing function bodies.

Oh, I understand now, that we aren't going to be 100% standards
compliant based on how we quote our function bodies --- I understand
Andrew's point now.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

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