| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info> |
| Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL 1.2 |
| Date: | 2014-09-04 13:43:34 |
| Message-ID: | CAFj8pRBr=RB_K6Uzr1Kzqtxy1Nx1JAsAS0Zj+raNFff_uobaVQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2014-09-04 15:38 GMT+02:00 Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info>:
> On 09/04/2014 09:31 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>> 2014-09-04 15:24 GMT+02:00 Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info
>>
>> I think I like the COMMAND CONSTRAINT the best so far.
>>
>>
>> I not, because when it will not be part of SQL, than parser in plpgsql
>> will be more complex. You have to inject SELECT, UPDATE, INSERT, DELETE
>>
>
> Making the COMMAND CONSTRAINT part of the core SQL parser was how I
> understood Hannu's idea. It would be horrible to tuck that feature away
> inside of a PL, rather than making it available to all PLs as well as
> applications, that use SQL directly (I think there still are two or three
> applications that do).
So I am happy so we have agreement, so implementation on PL level can be
terrible.
Pavel
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Jan
>
> --
> Jan Wieck
> Senior Software Engineer
> http://slony.info
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2014-09-04 13:50:58 | Re: psql \watch versus \timing |
| Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2014-09-04 13:38:25 | Re: PL/pgSQL 1.2 |