Marc G. Fournier said:
> On Wed, 19 May 2004, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> People,
>>
>> > >So, why tie it into the PostgreSQL source tree? Won't it be
>> > >popular enough to live on its own, that it has to be distributed as
>> > >part of the core?
>>
>> Personally, I find it rather inconsistent to have any PL, other than
>> PL/pgSQL, as part of the core distribution -- when we are pushing the
>> interfaces, such as JDBC and libpqxx to seperate modules in pgFoundry.
>
> Actually, JDBC, libpqxx, ODBC, plPHP, plPerlNG are all really easy to
> push over to pgFoundry ... they have very active, and visible,
> developers responsible for them ... is anyone out there directing work
> on pl/pgsql or pl/TCL? If so, they are easy to move also ...
>
>> Either we're trying to lighten up the core, or we're not. But right
>> now there seems to be no logic in operation.
>
> Its easier to *not add* something to core (ie. plPHP/plPerlNG) then it
> is to remove something (see JDBC) ...
>
plperlng is not "something not in the core". It is a project to improve
something that *is* in the core. That has always been my intention, and it
is clear from his comments that it has always been Joshua Drake's too.
cheers
andrew
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
