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
> 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 ...
> Thank you,
> Timothy Madden
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Craig Ringer||Date: 2009-10-26 09:07:04|
|Subject: Re: Postmaster hangs|
|Previous:||From: Pavel Stehule||Date: 2009-10-26 04:43:14|
|Subject: Re: BUG #5136: Please drop the string literal syntax for CREATE FUNCTION ...|