Re: Can the string literal syntax for function definitions please be dropped ?

From: Adrian Klaver <aklaver(at)comcast(dot)net>
To: Timothy Madden <terminatorul(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: Can the string literal syntax for function definitions please be dropped ?
Date: 2009-10-25 23:50:51
Message-ID: 200910251650.51729.aklaver@comcast.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Sunday 25 October 2009 4:06:33 pm Timothy Madden wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com
>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Timothy Madden escribió:
> > > Anyway Posgres offers a CREATE FUNCTION statement that resembles or
> >
> > should
> >
> > > resemble that in the standard, and that is what I am talking about.
> >
> > "Should" being the operative word in that sentence. If you want to
> > submit a patch to move us closer towards the SQL/PSM goal, I'm sure it
> > will be welcome.
>
> You know that takes quite some effort to invest. How are you sure a patch
> for this will be
> welcome when people here mostly disagree with me ?

Since we are getting philosophical, I did not realize agreement was necessary to
get things done:) I do agree with the effort assessment. To justify the effort
though, it would seem you only need to convince yourself of the merits.
Basically "A Field of Dreams" scenario. You build it and see who shows up.

>
>
>
> Thank you,
> Timothy Madden

--
Adrian Klaver
aklaver(at)comcast(dot)net

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2009-10-25 23:56:00 Re: Can the string literal syntax for function definitions please be dropped ?
Previous Message Adrian Klaver 2009-10-25 23:41:47 Re: Can the string literal syntax for function definitions please be dropped ?