Re: actualized SQL/PSM patch

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: actualized SQL/PSM patch
Date: 2008-04-03 05:04:15
Message-ID: 23275.1207199055@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> ... I suspect anyone wanting to migrate
> their existing SQL/PSM stuff to Postgres will be less than impressed by
> our "function body as a string" mechanism.

Yeah, that's the other little problem with claiming standards-compliance
as a reason for doing this. We'd really have to suck it up and figure
some other way of parsing function bodies.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zoltan Boszormenyi 2008-04-03 05:52:25 Re: TRUNCATE TABLE with IDENTITY
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2008-04-03 05:02:29 Re: actualized SQL/PSM patch