Re: PL/pgSQL 2

On 02/09/14 11:34, Mark Kirkwood wrote:

On 02/09/14 21:25, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote:

On 02/09/14 05:24, Craig Ringer wrote:

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.

     So we'd choose a bizarre and quirky language instead of anything
better just because it's standard. I'm sure current and prospective
users will surely prefer a bizarre and quirky language that is standard
approved, rather than a modern, comfortable, easy-to-use, that is not
embodied by the ISO. No doubt ^_^

Well there is the risk that by randomly adding new syntax to PL/pgSQL we turn it in a bizarre and quirky *non standard* language. Part of the attraction of PL/pgsql is that it is Ada like - if we break that too much then...well...that would be bad. So I think a careful balance is needed, to add new features that keep the spirit of the original language.

    I agree. I think I haven't suggested adding new syntax to pl/pgsql. But having its syntax similar to ADA is IMHO not something good. I'm sure few prospective postgres users would be compelled to that. They are compelled about JavaScript, python, Scala or Ruby, to name a few, but definitely not ADA.

    Regards,

    Álvaro

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers