From: | Timothy Madden <terminatorul(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 22:32:10 |
Message-ID: | 5078d8af0910251532t780e5787qa4567c011be8e436@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
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 ...
Thank you,
Timothy Madden
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Karen Pease | 2009-10-26 02:52:36 | Postmaster hangs |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-10-25 22:13:07 | Re: BUG #5136: Please drop the string literal syntax for CREATE FUNCTION ... |