Re: PL/pgSQL 2

On 09/02/2014 06:50 PM, Jan Wieck wrote:
> On 09/02/2014 06:41 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>
>> On 09/02/2014 02:47 PM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote:
>>
>>>      Yeah, we differ there. I think having an Oracle compatibility
>>> layer
>>> in PostgreSQL would be the-next-big-thing we could have. Oracle is has
>>> orders of magnitude bigger user base than postgres has; and having the
>>> ability to attract them would bring us many many more users which, in
>>> turn, would benefit us all very significantly.
>>>
>>>      It would be my #1 priority to do in postgres (but yes, I know
>>> -guess- how hard and what resources that would require). But
>>> dreaming is
>>> free :)
>>
>> Oracle compatibility certainly has merit, I just don't see it as useful
>> for core. I would be far more interested in MSSQL compatibility
>> honestly. That said, Postgres itself is a rockstar and I think we can
>> make our own case without having to copy others.
>
> PL/pgSQL's syntax was modelled to look like PL/SQL. Which is a
> Ada/COBOL lookalike.

Ada yes, COBOL no.

>
> Instead of trying to mimic what it was or a T-SQL thing instead ...
> maybe it is time to come up with a true PostgreSQL specific PL for a
> change?
>
> Just for the sake of being something new, and not a copy of some old
> opossum, that's rotting like road kill on the side of the highway for
> a decade already.
>
>
>



People are free to do what they want, but to my mind that would be a
massive waste of resources, and probably imposing a substantial extra
maintenance burden on the core committers.

cheers

andrew