2016-01-14 20:09 GMT+01:00 Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>:
> On 2016-01-14 8:06 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>> Probably there is less risk than 7 years ago, but still creating own
>> syntax
>> isn't the best idea. This is syntactic sugar only and different from ANSi
>> SQL or common standard.
>>
>
> So is RETURNING,
is it ANSI SQL redundant?
> UPSERT,
the behave is partially different than MERGE, so different syntax is 100%
valid
> PL/PgSQL and many other useful features.
>
PL/pgSQL is PL/SQL clone, and because the base is Ada, it cannot be
compatible with SQL/PSM.
Regards
Pavel
>
>
> .m
>