From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Timothy Madden <terminatorul(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #5136: Please drop the string literal syntax for CREATE FUNCTION ... |
Date: | 2009-10-25 16:17:26 |
Message-ID: | 162867790910250917j71322d8bl773963d5c647de47@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
2009/10/25 Timothy Madden <terminatorul(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>>
>> On lör, 2009-10-24 at 14:01 +0000, Timothy Madden wrote:
>> > Can the string literal syntax for CREATE FUNCTION please, please be
>> > dropped
>> > ... ?
>
> [...]
>>
>> > It is not ANSI/ISO and so annoying for compatibility.
>>
>> Whatever is inside the string literal is also not ANSI/ISO, so why would
>> it make a difference?
>>
> At least the function declaration syntax would be right. I think it would be
> an important difference; this string literal idea is so strange and
> unnatural ...
>
> And why the function body would not be standard ?
Because standard knows only SQL/PSM language for SQL procedures.
Others databases support only one language for sql procedures (PL/SQL,
T-SQL). But PostgreSQL supports plpgsql, plperl, plpython as sql
procedures - and I am sure, so standard doesnt calculate with
multilangual environments.
Regards
Pavel Stehule
Do you mean it can never
> be for some reason ? How about a simple function ?
>
> Thank you,
> Timothy Madden
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-10-25 18:51:14 | Re: BUG #5137: Upgrade policy clarification |
Previous Message | Timothy Madden | 2009-10-25 16:09:12 | Re: BUG #5136: Please drop the string literal syntax for CREATE FUNCTION ... |