Re: PL/pgSQL 2

On 2014-09-06 6:31 PM, Jan Wieck wrote:
> On 09/06/2014 12:17 PM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
>> OK, fine.  But that's not what I suggested on the wiki page, and is also
>> not what I'm arguing for here right now.  What the message you referred
>> to was about was the condescending attitude where we were told to "think
>> in terms of sets" (paraphrased), without considering whether that's even
>> possible to do *all the time*.
>
> SQL is, by definition, a set oriented language. The name Procedural
> Language / pgSQL was supposed to suggest that this language adds some
> procedural elements to the PostgreSQL database. I never intended to
> create a 100% procedural language. It was from the very beginning, 16
> years ago, intended to keep the set orientation when it comes to DML
> statements inside of functions.
>
> No matter how hard you
> try to make them special, in my mind they are not.

Of course they are.  That's why you have PRIMARY KEYs and UNIQUE 
constraints.


.marko