| From: | Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |
| Date: | 2014-09-06 16:37:29 |
| Message-ID: | 540B3849.3080008@wi3ck.info |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-09-06 16:43:42 | Re: pg_isready --username seems an empty promise |
| Previous Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2014-09-06 16:33:32 | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |