Re: PL/pgSQL 2

From: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: David G Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PL/pgSQL 2
Date: 2014-09-02 04:42:42
Message-ID: 54054AC2.9030005@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 09/02/2014 12:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> As a case in point, EDB have spent quite a few man-years on their Oracle
> compatibility layer; and it's still not a terribly exact match, according
> to my colleagues who have looked at it. So that is a tarbaby I don't
> personally care to touch ... even ignoring the fact that cutting off
> EDB's air supply wouldn't be a good thing for the community to do.

Yep. Especially as PL/SQL is not a lovely language to work with anyway;
if the goal was "a better built-in PL" then PL/SQL wouldn't be my first
choice by any stretch.

--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig Ringer 2014-09-02 04:52:03 Re: On partitioning
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-09-02 04:40:14 Re: PL/pgSQL 2