-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:57:11 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> > 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.
>
> > That is likely because everyone knew he was working on it.
>
> By "everyone" I suppose you mean the dozen or three people who are
> paying close attention to who's doing what in PG development.
Well I think that is a bit of an understatement. I know that I have
talked to people about this patch for some time. Even well before 8.3
came out.
> I'm not against having SQL/PSM support. I'm just saying I'm not
> willing to support two copies of plpgsql to do it.
I didn't disagree with you Tom.
Joshua D. Drake
- --
The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFH9GTnATb/zqfZUUQRAlaqAJ0bU/N625e5+BoVQRepETsU4Lij5gCfQ5qo
xOqTAATx8P9AW7ZKE0qAE+I=
=g2v9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----