Re: PL/pgSQL 2

On 09/06/2014 12:33 PM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> 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.

Then please use those features instead of crippling the language.


Jan

-- 
Jan Wieck
Senior Software Engineer
http://slony.info