| From: | "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: proposal for 8.4: PL/pgSQL - statement CASE |
| Date: | 2008-01-17 17:11:29 |
| Message-ID: | b42b73150801170911n6a3ee224n2ceaf9cdbe219bd7@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jan 17, 2008 12:08 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> > Primary goal is ANSI SQL conformance (for me). Current PL/pgSQL isn't
> > compatible and it will not be compatible in future (we have different
> > implementation of SRF and really specific implementation of OUT
> > parameters). But why artificially create bigger dif between PL/pgSQL
> > and PL/SQL?
> >
> > I am sorry, I can't to speak in English gently (because my English is
> > all else than English), and some my notes are maybe too much hard.
>
> If primary goal is ANSI SQL conformance shouldn't we be focusing on
> pl/psm not plpgsql? (yes I am aware they are similar syntatically)
ANSI SQL conformance is not necessarily the only goal. Being able to
easily port Oracle applications is pretty nice. Being able to run
T-SQL in some fashion would be nice as well.
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2008-01-17 17:44:41 | Re: proposal for 8.4: PL/pgSQL - statement CASE |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2008-01-17 17:08:45 | Re: proposal for 8.4: PL/pgSQL - statement CASE |