Re: PL/pgSQL 2

From: Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PL/pgSQL 2
Date: 2014-09-01 13:19:41
Message-ID: CAASwCXcgOM5CvQ8AJM5XotBjO5jeUAj6ZM+e7q=opKdM4zwRNQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> It bad signal to have two languages plpgsql and plpgsql2. Who will believe
> to us so we will continue development of plpgsql?

Depends on how you define "development".
Bugfixes of plpgsql? Yes, of course.
New features? No, but that's a non-issue since we all know it's more
or less impossible to introduce new features without breaking
compatibility, I think you will agree on that, no?

>> A new language like SQL/PSM would be helpful for new projects,
>> but personally I have a huge code base written in plpgsql which
>> I would at some point want to port to plpgsql2, and the least time
>> consuming
>> way of doing so would be to make sure most existing plpgsql-functions
>> require no modifications at all to work with plpgsql2.
>
>
> I understand - just I don't would to repeat a issues of Python3 or Perl6 or

The fatal problems with Python3 and Perl6 was the inability to mix
code between Python2/3 and Perl5/6.
We don't have that problem with pl-languages in postgres, so please
don't make that comparison, as it's incorrect.

>> I think plpgsql2 is a perfect name for it, because it is a new version
>> of plpgsql,
>> based on all the empirical knowledge gained from the 16 years of
>> development in plpgsql.
>> And while most improvements fall in the "stricter" category, there are
>> probably other things
>> which we would want to change when having the possibility of breaking
>> compatibility.
>
>
>
> you can do it - but will be better as independent project.
>
> There is big space for improvement in plpgsql - but almost all can be done
> without some stronger incompatibility.
>
> Or this incompatibility (or stronger restrictivity) can be introduced in
> longer time window.

With "can be done" you have to take into account what kind of changes
the project accepts into the plpgsql-code
Looking back a few years of efforts from people (including yourself),
it looks like much of the energy and hours invested would have made a
much better pay-off in a new language.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2014-09-01 13:25:14 Re: PL/pgSQL 2
Previous Message Marko Tiikkaja 2014-09-01 13:12:27 Re: PL/pgSQL 2