From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)toroid(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Steve Prentice <prentice(at)cisco(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: PATCH: make plpgsql IN args mutable (v1) [REVIEW] |
Date: | 2009-09-16 14:17:20 |
Message-ID: | 162867790909160717x2e48d86fxb26d255bd3908a76@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>
>
> I'm not terribly impressed by either of Pavel's arguments. SQL/PSM is
> irrelevant, and the existence of one inconsistency doesn't seems to me to be
> a good rationale to create another. If there were a major increase in
> utility I would be more willing, but at best this overcomes a minor
> inconvenience, that is easily worked around.
>
> It probably won't cause any problem with code being migrated from PLSQL, but
> it will affect code going the other way. The question is: do we care about
> that? I'm prepared to be persuaded that we shouldn't care, but I'm not quite
> there yet.
>
In this case I have not strong opinion. Similarity with SQL/PSM isn't
my main argument. I see, so immutable IN arguments are typical problem
for beginners. Internally arguments are not immutable - so mutable
arguments should help to people who start with PostgreSQL.
But I accept, so this increase difference between plpgsql and pl/sql
what is wrong too.
Regards
Pavel
> cheers
>
> andrew
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Steve Prentice | 2009-09-16 14:19:25 | Re: PATCH: make plpgsql IN args mutable (v1) [REVIEW] |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-09-16 14:07:09 | Re: PATCH: make plpgsql IN args mutable (v1) [REVIEW] |