From: | "Joel Burton" <joel(at)joelburton(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Joel Burton" <joel(at)joelburton(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "PostgreSQL Development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Updated CREATE FUNCTION syntax |
Date: | 2002-05-18 20:48:07 |
Message-ID: | 20020518204807.705BD2B811@temp.joelburton.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> said:
> "Joel Burton" <joel(at)joelburton(dot)com> writes:
> > Given that 98% of my function defining is done is psql, this would be
> > fine for me and solve my frustrations. It wouldn't help people that
> > build functions in scripting languages or non-psql environments,
> > however, but I don't know how common this is.
>
> True, but I'm thinking that other development environments could provide
> equivalent features. (I seem to recall that pgAdmin already does, for
> example.)
>
> ISTM the reason we've not addressed this for so long is that no one
> could think of a reasonable way to solve it on the backend side.
> Maybe we just have to shift our focus.
Out of curiosity, Tom, why the preference for a solution like this rather than allowing for a much-less-common-than-' delimiter for the create function syntax? (Such as the "[[" and "]]" I suggested a few posts ago?) This would seem like something that wouldn't seem too difficult to do, and would work in all environments.
That would have the advantage of being consistent as users switched from writing functions in psql to writing function-writing functions, to writing functions in other environments, etc.
Thanks,
- J.
--
Joel BURTON | joel(at)joelburton(dot)com | joelburton.com | aim: wjoelburton
Knowledge Management & Technology Consultant
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joel Burton | 2002-05-18 20:51:31 | Set-returning function syntax |
Previous Message | Bear Giles | 2002-05-18 20:33:28 | Re: SASL, compression? |