Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: BUG #5136: Please drop the string literal syntax for CREATE FUNCTION ...

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Timothy Madden <terminatorul(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: 2009-10-26 04:44:21
Message-ID: 162867790910252144o1243b7a8w1f9ed7ed0ece4357@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
2009/10/25 Timothy Madden <terminatorul(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>
>> Timothy Madden <terminatorul(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> > Ok I get it. So Posgres also offers perl and python in addition to SQL.
>> > But at least for SQL, which is included and defined in the standard,
>> > could
>> > the syntax be made conforming ?
>>
>> I think you still haven't got the point: there is *no* function language
>> that we offer that exactly matches what the spec has got.  Not using
>> string-literal syntax, difficult as that is already, would probably
>> represent about 1% of the work needed to implement what the spec
>> suggests.
>
>
> I would like to put to good use the statements and expression that do match
> (SELECT/INSERT/UPDATE/ ...), and the very function declaration syntax is
> getting in the way, making even those matches now useless ...

???

Pavel
>
> Thank you,
> Timothy Madden
>

In response to

Responses

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Craig RingerDate: 2009-10-26 09:07:04
Subject: Re: Postmaster hangs
Previous:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2009-10-26 04:43:14
Subject: Re: BUG #5136: Please drop the string literal syntax for CREATE FUNCTION ...

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group