| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Timothy Madden <terminatorul(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Adrian Klaver <aklaver(at)comcast(dot)net>, 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 21:40:06 |
| Message-ID: | 20091025214005.GA5516@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Timothy Madden escribió:
> Just like when I write C++ applications I use standards-conforming
> C++, when I write SQL applications I would like to use
> standard-conforming SQL.
Sadly, we don't have standards-conformant SQL/PSM. Right now, we have a
lot of different languages for functions, none of them mandated by SQL,
and there is no reason to create a syntax exception for any of them.
I am sure that when we get SQL/PSM support, the interest in getting
standards-conformant procedure creation statements is going to get a lot
higher.
PL/pgSQL is not SQL/PSM.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-10-25 22:01:18 | Re: Can the string literal syntax for function definitions please be dropped ? |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2009-10-25 21:33:30 | Re: Can the string literal syntax for function definitions please be dropped ? |