Re: SQL-standard function body

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SQL-standard function body
Date: 2020-07-01 22:56:24
Message-ID: CA+hUKGK9pfNptAQDNaugsyectUCUk4nsH9EVDBqin+rUdzgEEw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 5:58 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 1:49 PM Peter Eisentraut
> <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > This adds support for writing CREATE FUNCTION and CREATE PROCEDURE
> > statements for language SQL with a function body that conforms to the
> > SQL standard and is portable to other implementations.
>
> With what other implementations is it compatible?

Judging by the Wikipedia article[1], it sounds like at least DB2 and
MySQL/MariaDB are purposely striving for conformance. When I worked
with DB2 a few years back I preferred to use their standard-conforming
PL stuff (as opposed to their be-more-like-Oracle PL/SQL mode), and I
always hoped that PostgreSQL would eventually understand the same
syntax; admittedly, anyone who has ever worked on large applications
that support multiple RDBMSs knows that there's more than just surface
syntax to worry about, but it still seems like a pretty solid plan to
conform to the standard that's in our name, so +1 from me on the
general direction (I didn't look at the patch).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL/PSM

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2020-07-01 23:00:07 Re: POC: rational number type (fractions)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2020-07-01 22:40:51 Re: POC: rational number type (fractions)