| From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Controlling changes in plpgsql variable resolution |
| Date: | 2009-10-19 17:37:25 |
| Message-ID: | b42b73150910191037p4133a9a7r4d06fbf81a5d9aac@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
>> I'd sure love $, as it's like shell, Perl, and other stuff.
>
> This discussion has gotten utterly off track. The problem I am trying
> to solve is a non-Oracle-compatible behavior in plpgsql. I have got
> substantially less than zero interest in proposals that "solve" the
> problem by introducing notations that don't even pretend to be
> compatible.
Personally, I'd vote against a GUC option. I just plain don't like the
idea that a function could do different things depending on server
configuration. TBH, I'm not very happy with #option either. That
said, I agree that Oracle method is far better.
Maybe invent a new language handler? plpgsql2 or shorten to pgsql?
Now you can mess around all you want (and maybe fix some other
compatibility warts at the same time).
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-10-19 17:46:47 | Re: Controlling changes in plpgsql variable resolution |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2009-10-19 17:17:52 | Re: Controlling changes in plpgsql variable resolution |