Re: Three weeks left until feature freeze
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Three weeks left until feature freeze |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 17722.1152815257@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Three weeks left until feature freeze (mark@mark.mielke.cc) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
mark@mark.mielke.cc writes: > This is why I was thinking that the problem is that the backend (SPI?) > API isn't exposed as native methods in the required languages. If just > the SPI API was exposed from the core to the languages, the > maintenance effort and size should be less, and the add-ons would not > require that they be built with the PostgreSQL core, making it easy to > integrate them after the fact. It's not just SPI --- SPI for instance doesn't deal at all with the problem of how you create a language call handler function. SPI was never intended to be a "complete" API, but rather something easy to use that covers most cases of C code needing to invoke SQL queries. Code that's trying to offer features to SQL is entirely orthogonal to what SPI is about. I'm not real sure what a feature-complete API for language handlers might look like, but it'd cover far more than SPI does. And this really just begs the question: could we afford to promise a frozen API that *is* feature-complete at that level? The changes we've made recently that affected both core and PLs have mostly been things like adding OUT parameter support, which certainly would have involved changing a language handler API; or modifications to the system catalogs, which I can't see a handler API masking; or changes to the conventions for passing tuples as Datums, which again I doubt an API would have successfully hidden. It's an interesting idea to think about, but I think any solution of this kind is a long way off, unless the internals of the backend suddenly become a lot more stable than they have been in the past. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: