Обсуждение: PL contribution guidelines?
I want to make a contribution. It is a new (to pgsql) procedural language. Currently it already works (but debugging output is not disabled yet). I've got some questions and considerations, please, correct me if I am wrong: I understand that pgsql uses autoconf but not other autotools. The best location for such contribution is in src/pl/pl<lang-name> Now, how do I include my PL into the build list? What files must I provide? (preferrably, by borrowing them from another PL, e.g. PLPERL or TCL]) Currently, I compile the C source by hands: cc -fpic -I /pgsql/src/include -c plpfe.c cc -shared -Wl,--rpath -Wl,/usr/local/lib -Wl,--rpath -Wl, /usr/local/lib/pfe -o plpfe.so plpfe.o -lpfe One part of the implementation resides in the pfe build tree, but it needs postgres.h and fmgr.h Currently I use #include "/pgsql/src/include/postgres.h" #include "/pgsql/src/include/fmgr.h" (/pgsql is a symlink to the PostgreSQL*.*.* directory) but IMO there should be a better way. Should I publish the project as plpfe.sf.net, or there's a better location? I also composed PLSAMPLE (the same implementation components, but empty). IMO, it (PLSAMPLE) also should be there in the PSQL distribution. regards, mlg
mlg3 writes: > I understand that pgsql uses autoconf but not other autotools. > The best location for such contribution is in > src/pl/pl<lang-name> > > Now, how do I include my PL into the build list? > What files must I provide? (preferrably, by borrowing > them from another PL, e.g. PLPERL or TCL]) There is currently some disagreement about whether every now procedural language implementation should be included in the core distribution. If you choose to distribute your package separately, you can take a look at http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/plsh.html as an example for how to package it. > I also composed PLSAMPLE (the same implementation > components, but empty). IMO, it (PLSAMPLE) also should be > there in the PSQL distribution. I think there is enough documentation about this already. Creating a PL handler is not a common task. But if you have concrete points that you would like to have mentioned somewhere, please tell us about them. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
On Thu, 2003-09-25 at 07:12, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > mlg3 writes: > > Now, how do I include my PL into the build list? > > What files must I provide? (preferrably, by borrowing > > them from another PL, e.g. PLPERL or TCL]) > > There is currently some disagreement about whether every now procedural > language implementation should be included in the core distribution. If > you choose to distribute your package separately, you can take a look at > http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/plsh.html as an example for how to > package it. > Is there? The last new procedural language that I recall was Joe's plr, which IIRC was moved to gborg due to license issues with the R libraries. <troll>darn gpl license..if only it was commercially dual licensed</troll> otherwise my understanding is that all of the other pl authors that distribute outside of core do so either by their own choosing or because the proposed implementation is not quite "ready for prime time" enough to be included. oh.. and i'm not forgetting plphp, but it has both licensing issues and isn't ready for prime time. Robert Treat -- Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
On 25 Sep 2003, Robert Treat wrote: > oh.. and i'm not forgetting plphp, but it has both licensing issues and > isn't ready for prime time. I thought there weren't any license issues, except mayhaps with the name. http://www.php.net/license/3_0.txt
scott.marlowe wrote: > On 25 Sep 2003, Robert Treat wrote: > > > oh.. and i'm not forgetting plphp, but it has both licensing issues and > > isn't ready for prime time. > > I thought there weren't any license issues, except mayhaps with the name. > > http://www.php.net/license/3_0.txt That is what I thought too. Originally PlPHP was stated as being released as GPL (which the author thought was used by PHP), but later corrected to be the BSD license. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania19073
Hello, Yes plPHP is under the BSD style PHP license. We are going to dual license on next release which is REAL soon now. Sincerley, Joshua Drake Bruce Momjian wrote: >scott.marlowe wrote: > > >>On 25 Sep 2003, Robert Treat wrote: >> >> >> >>>oh.. and i'm not forgetting plphp, but it has both licensing issues and >>>isn't ready for prime time. >>> >>> >>I thought there weren't any license issues, except mayhaps with the name. >> >>http://www.php.net/license/3_0.txt >> >> > >That is what I thought too. Originally PlPHP was stated as being >released as GPL (which the author thought was used by PHP), but later >corrected to be the BSD license. > > >
On Thu, 2003-09-25 at 13:26, Bruce Momjian wrote: > scott.marlowe wrote: > > On 25 Sep 2003, Robert Treat wrote: > > > > > oh.. and i'm not forgetting plphp, but it has both licensing issues and > > > isn't ready for prime time. > > > > I thought there weren't any license issues, except mayhaps with the name. > > > > http://www.php.net/license/3_0.txt > > That is what I thought too. Originally PlPHP was stated as being > released as GPL (which the author thought was used by PHP), but later > corrected to be the BSD license. > The naming issue was the one that had stuck in my head. (Noting that it isn't BSD licensed, it's PHP licensed, which might be a problem for some, but seems fairly BSD compatible). Robert Treat -- Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > mlg3 writes: > > > I understand that pgsql uses autoconf but not other autotools. > > The best location for such contribution is in > > src/pl/pl<lang-name> > > > > Now, how do I include my PL into the build list? > > What files must I provide? (preferrably, by borrowing > > them from another PL, e.g. PLPERL or TCL]) > > There is currently some disagreement about whether every now procedural > language implementation should be included in the core distribution. If > you choose to distribute your package separately, you can take a look at > http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/plsh.html as an example for how to > package it. 1) Is there a centralized list of pgsql PL's ? 2) At that URL, I see: pgplsh-1.0-7.3.tar.gz 17-Dec-2002 19:17 244k GZIP compressed docume> pgplsh-20010821.tar.gz 23-Sep-2002 18:08 99k GZIP compressed docume> pgplsh-20010914.tar.gz 23-Sep-2002 18:08 101k GZIP compressed docume> pgplsh-20011005.tar.gz 23-Sep-2002 18:08 102k GZIP compressed docume> which version should I prefer? What is the difference between them?
mlg7 writes: > Is there a centralized list of pgsql PL's ? I'm not aware of one. > At that URL, I see: > pgplsh-1.0-7.3.tar.gz 17-Dec-2002 19:17 244k GZIP compressed docume> > pgplsh-20010821.tar.gz 23-Sep-2002 18:08 99k GZIP compressed docume> > pgplsh-20010914.tar.gz 23-Sep-2002 18:08 101k GZIP compressed docume> > pgplsh-20011005.tar.gz 23-Sep-2002 18:08 102k GZIP compressed docume> > which version should I prefer? What is the difference between them? They are different historical versions. Use the newest one. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
On Saturday 27 September 2003 19:46, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > mlg7 writes: > > Is there a centralized list of pgsql PL's ? > > I'm not aware of one. http://techdocs.postgresql.org/guides/PLLanguages Josh posted it on advocacy few days back. Shridhar
>On Saturday 27 September 2003 19:46, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> mlg7 writes: >> > Is there a centralized list of pgsql PL's ? >> >> I'm not aware of one. > >http://techdocs.postgresql.org/guides/PLLanguages > >Josh posted it on advocacy few days back. > > Shridhar > That does not work: : Proxy Error : The proxy server received an invalid response from an upstream server. : : The proxy server could not handle the request GET /guides/PLLanguages. : : Reason: Could not connect to remote machine: Operation timed out
On Sunday 28 September 2003 11:53, mlg7 wrote: > >On Saturday 27 September 2003 19:46, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> mlg7 writes: > >> > Is there a centralized list of pgsql PL's ? > >> > >> I'm not aware of one. > > > >http://techdocs.postgresql.org/guides/PLLanguages > > > >Josh posted it on advocacy few days back. > > > > Shridhar > > That does not work: > : Proxy Error > : The proxy server received an invalid response from an upstream server. > : > : The proxy server could not handle the request GET /guides/PLLanguages. > : > : Reason: Could not connect to remote machine: Operation timed out Try google cache http://www.google.co.in/search?q=cache:iDjd8nA-l2IJ:techdocs.postgresql.org/guides/PLLanguages+list+of+postgresql+procedural+languages&hl=mr&ie=UTF-8 The google search term I used was "list of postgresql procedural languages". Look for first techdocs link. Yesterday when I got same error, I thought there was problem with international link again...:-) Hard to tell where exactly problem is.. Shridhar