Re: PL/pgSQL 2
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 5405631C.7050200@vmware.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 (Joel Jacobson <joel@trustly.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: PL/pgSQL 2
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 09/02/2014 09:06 AM, Joel Jacobson wrote: > Given the needed diff between plpgsql and plpgsql2 for the changes I'm > mostly interested in would probably be quite small, > I'm in favour of Tom's suggestion of: >> c) plpgsql and plpgsql2 are the same code base, with a small number >> of places that act differently depending on the language version. > > That fits perfectly for my needs, as I don't want to change much. > > But even if we find we want to make larger mostly-compatible changes, > maybe that also can be implemented using the same approach. > > For me, the most important is to not break *most* of existing plpgsql > code, but it's OK to break *some*. > And when breaking it, it should be trivial to rewrite it to become compatible. I think the next step would be to list all the things you don't like with current PL/pgSQL, and write down how you would want them to work if you were starting with a clean slate. Let's see how wide the consensus is that the new syntax/behavior is better than what we have now. We can then start thinking how to best adapt them to the current PL/pgSQL syntax and codebase. Maybe with pragmas, or new commands, or deprecating the old behavior; the best approach depends on the details, and how widely desired the new behavior is, so we need to see that first. I'd suggest collecting the ideas on a wiki page, and once you have some concrete set of features and syntax there, start a new thread to discuss them. Others will probably have other features they want, like the simpler "DROP TABLE ?" thing. - Heikki
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: