| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Álvaro Hernández Tortosa <aht(at)nosys(dot)es> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |
| Date: | 2014-09-01 18:42:22 |
| Message-ID: | 13395.1409596942@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
=?UTF-8?B?w4FsdmFybyBIZXJuw6FuZGV6IFRvcnRvc2E=?= <aht(at)nosys(dot)es> writes:
> What I can add is that, if Postgres is to devote resources to a new
> language, I would plan it with a broader scope. What would attract most
> users? Would it bring non postgres users to Postgres? What could be one
> of the killer features of any next version? My trivial answer to most of
> these questions is: PL/SQL.
By that I suppose you mean "I wish it would act just like Oracle".
The problem with such a wish is that a lot of the incompatibilities
with Oracle are functions of the core SQL engine, not of the PL.
plpgsql already is about as close to PL/SQL as it's possible to get
without changing core Postgres behavior --- or at least, that was
the original design desire, and I don't think that it's failed in
any large degree.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Álvaro Hernández Tortosa | 2014-09-01 18:58:02 | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-09-01 18:38:27 | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |