On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 01:05:07PM +0200, Dawid Kuroczko wrote: > On 8/15/05, MICHAEL BATTANI <MICHAEL.BATTANI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I've been scanning the postgres website and yours to find out any > > information on cobol stored procedures. Is there any plans on incorporating > > this > > in future releases? > > I don't think anyone is working on such a thing right now. > > The procedural languages development usually follows this route: It's even more complicated than this I think in this case. Pretty much all of the procedural languages currently supported are interpreted, it's easier that way. Compiled (C) functions need to be compiled and loaded specially, which I imagine is not what the original poster wanted. Looking on the web for a free (open source) COBOL interpreters[1][2] has not been fruitful which just places another roadblock. I know nothing about COBOL so I have no idea how hard it would be to write one. Perhaps translating to another interpreted language would be easier. At least COBOL to C converters seem to be in abundence. [1] http://www.thefreecountry.com/compilers/cobol.shtml [2] http://www.ecuadors.net/compilers.htm Hope this helps, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@xxxxxxxxx> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a > tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone > else to do the other 95% so you can sue them.
Attachment:
pgp9ujyOvKkIa.pgp
Description: PGP signature
