Re: actualized SQL/PSM patch

Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >
> >> The fundamental problem I've got with this patch is that it adds 400K
> >> of new code (and that's just the code, not counting documentation or
> >> regression tests) that we'll have to maintain, to obtain a feature that
> >> so far as I've heard there is precisely zero demand for.
> >>
> >
> > We have a customer that wants to use it as part of a MySQL-to-Postgres
> > migration.
> >
> >
>
> Using an implementation like this? I suspect anyone wanting to migrate
> their existing SQL/PSM stuff to Postgres will be less than impressed by
> our "function body as a string" mechanism.

What is your point? That because of the $$ strings they might as well
rewrite the whole thing in PL/pgSQL.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +