Re: pltcl_*mod commands are broken on Solaris 10
От | Zdenek Kotala |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pltcl_*mod commands are broken on Solaris 10 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 48878019.6040201@sun.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pltcl_*mod commands are broken on Solaris 10 (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: pltcl_*mod commands are broken on Solaris 10
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane napsal(a): > Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek.Kotala@Sun.COM> writes: >> Tom Lane napsal(a): >>> Actually it looks like it's been a very long time since these scripts >>> got any love anyway. There's no reason anymore to split modules into >>> multiple rows (not since TOAST...) and they're not schema-safe either. >>> Anybody feel like cleaning them up? Or should we leave 'em as-is >>> for compatibility reasons? > >> Just a dumb question, does we need this functionality? Does anybody use it? > > Well, autoloading Tcl scripts is an extremely standard thing to do in > the Tcl world. It makes sense to me for pltcl to provide a way of > autoloading code out of the database instead of some random search path > or other --- particularly for trusted pltcl, which shouldn't allow > access to the server filesystem at all. I see. > Whether these particular scripts are the best possible implementation of > the concept is another argument, of course. But I wouldn't agree with > just ripping 'em out. Note that my complaints above don't bear on > functionality, at least not unless someone is working in an environment > where the search_path varies a lot. So the lack of maintenance effort > doesn't indicate that they're not getting used. I understand. However I have another dumb idea/question - It seems to me that it is client code. I think that it should be integrated into psql command. It has several advantages - remove dependency on tclsh, remove tree commands, works fine on system where tcl is not present. thanks Zdenek -- Zdenek Kotala Sun Microsystems Prague, Czech Republic http://sun.com/postgresql
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: