Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Filip Rembiałkowski escribió: >> 2009/10/6 Richard Huxton <d...@archonet.com> >> >>> Are we looking down the wrong end of the telescope here? What if we had >>> something more like the "C" binding for functions: >>> >>> CREATE FUNCTION foo(int,text,int) AS 'MyModule::internal_foo' LANGUAGE >>> plperl; >>> If you want inter-function calls you use internal_foo. >>> >> this really would be a great feature for many plperl users. >> ( I'm not sure how it breaks current PL model in postgres) > > This would be a pain for dumps, because the user would have to install > the modules separately. Maybe we could have a different language (say > plperl2 for lack of a better name) that could work this way; if you > really wanted to do this, you could.
I was assuming it would be smart enough to issue a "use MyModule" itself (the same way the C library does). As far as pg_dump is concerned it probably needs to be taught how to bundle external files - custom tsearch dictionaries get left behind too. It almost certainly would need to be call plperlmod or some such of course - taking backwards compatibility away will just mean you have loads of perl hackers chasing after you with sharpened onions. -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
