| From: | Timothy Madden <terminatorul(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(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 23:06:33 |
| Message-ID: | 5078d8af0910251606r262f26bfn5290b539b5aa3b68@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
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 ?
>
>
> I just want the Postgres version of the statement to look more like
> > the standard one.
>
> Sure. If we weren't all pointing in that general direction, we would
> probably have CONNECT BY instead of WITH RECURSIVE.
>
I don't understand, what CONNECT BY or WITH RECURSIVE ?
Thank you,
Timothy Madden
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Adrian Klaver | 2009-10-25 23:41:47 | Re: Can the string literal syntax for function definitions please be dropped ? |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-10-25 22:42:09 | Re: Can the string literal syntax for function definitions please be dropped ? |