| From: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | Álvaro Hernández Tortosa <aht(at)nosys(dot)es>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |
| Date: | 2014-09-01 21:31:28 |
| Message-ID: | 5404E5B0.3080500@joh.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-09-01 11:11 PM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote:
> No, really: if there is a new version of a "language", which
> modifies the current syntax of plpgsql; if plpgsql is already very
> similar to PL/SQL: why not rather than coming up with a new syntax use
> an already existing one? One that many, many more users than plpgsql,
> already know?
The point isn't to create a new language just for the sake of creating a
new one. It's to fix the problems PL/PgSQL has. If we're just going to
trade the problems in PL/PgSQL with another set of problems implemented
by PL/SQL, we're just worse off in the end.
.marko
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G Johnston | 2014-09-01 21:46:52 | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |
| Previous Message | Álvaro Hernández Tortosa | 2014-09-01 21:16:17 | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |