| From: | Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info>, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa <aht(at)nosys(dot)es>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |
| Date: | 2014-09-03 13:25:31 |
| Message-ID: | CAASwCXebf4kM4vQL8MZzchStBgk6e6LDxjEoFtpTkrzgmf2xkg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Well, I don't think PostgreSQL needs its own PL. I mean we already have
> several (what other database has pl/javascript or pl/python?)
PostgreSQL already *have* it's own PL, it's called PL/pgSQL.
> Besides, the idea of this community trying to build its own programming
> language... oh lord ;)
I would agree it's too much of a challenge to invent a brand new
programming language,
I agree that's unrealistic, that's why I'm opting to do as much as
possible in the existing
language, and carefully think about what non-compatible important
changes we simply
cannot make to PL/pgSQL, as they by definition would break
compatibility (which we all
agree is not acceptable), but that *would* be possible with PL/pgSQL 2.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-09-03 13:31:50 | Re: Inverse of pg_get_serial_sequence? |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2014-09-03 13:24:45 | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |