| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: proposal for 8.4: PL/pgSQL - statement CASE |
| Date: | 2008-01-17 17:08:45 |
| Message-ID: | 20080117090845.1284ab3b@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:00:21 +0100
"Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Primary goal is ANSI SQL conformance (for me). Current PL/pgSQL isn't
> compatible and it will not be compatible in future (we have different
> implementation of SRF and really specific implementation of OUT
> parameters). But why artificially create bigger dif between PL/pgSQL
> and PL/SQL?
>
> I am sorry, I can't to speak in English gently (because my English is
> all else than English), and some my notes are maybe too much hard.
If primary goal is ANSI SQL conformance shouldn't we be focusing on
pl/psm not plpgsql? (yes I am aware they are similar syntatically)
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
- --
The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
SELECT 'Training', 'Consulting' FROM vendor WHERE name = 'CMD'
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHj4udATb/zqfZUUQRAgyeAJ9Cb9pAMiWvP/JDv6F89JPBAh2IPACeI6a6
0yl+dXdE9XyCEoGNCeb9EXw=
=oHVb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2008-01-17 17:11:29 | Re: proposal for 8.4: PL/pgSQL - statement CASE |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2008-01-17 17:00:21 | Re: proposal for 8.4: PL/pgSQL - statement CASE |