| From: | Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |
| Date: | 2014-09-02 04:11:35 |
| Message-ID: | 54054377.4040400@catalyst.net.nz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 02/09/14 15:46, Craig Ringer wrote:
> was "is exactly why we need a new language" and that "All the clumsy
> stuff we cannot fix in plpgsql, can easily be fixed in plpgsql2, with
> the most beautiful syntax we can come up with." But you haven't said HOW
> you propose to fix this one case.
Unfortunately, there is likely to be a (large) variance of opinion
concerning the details. In particular 'beautiful/elegant...'. Err -
these things are mostly in the eye of the beholder. E.g: I might want
this new shiny syntax to be lisp like, as that is beautiful (heh,
kidding - but you should get the idea).
Cheers
Mark
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ian Barwick | 2014-09-02 04:18:05 | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |
| Previous Message | Shigeru Hanada | 2014-09-02 04:10:36 | Re: Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW |