Re: PL/pgSQL 2

On 14/09/02 12:24, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 09/02/2014 08:09 AM, Neil Tiffin wrote:
(...)

>> That should be enough alone to suggest postgreSQL start working on a modern, 
>> in core, fast, fully supported language.
> 
> I couldn't disagree more.
> 
> If we were to implement anything, it'd be PL/PSM
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL/PSM). I'm sure it's as bizarre and
> quirky as anything else the SQL committee has brought forth, but it's at
> least a standard(ish) language.

For reference, and without wading into the general debate, there is an
existing, albeit outdated and dormant PL/PSM implementation:
 http://pgfoundry.org/frs/?group_id=1000238 http://postgres.cz/wiki/SQL/PSM_Manual

From my (limited) experience with the MySQL variant, it makes PL/pgSQL
look positively concise and elegant. Though that's just my subjective
opinion  (possibly coloured by the particular implementation) and not
necessarily a pro/contra argument ;).


Regards

Ian Barwick

-- Ian Barwick                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services