| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Pg Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |
| Date: | 2014-09-02 13:54:52 |
| Message-ID: | 5405CC2C.1020405@vmware.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 09/02/2014 04:52 PM, Joel Jacobson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 09/02/2014 04:32 PM, Joel Jacobson wrote:
>>> I think it's much better to make it the default behaviour in plpgsql2
>>> than to add a new syntax to plpgsql,
>>> because then we don't have to argue what to call the keyword or where to
>>> put it.
>>
>>
>> Then you'll have to argue what the *other* syntax should look like. And not
>> everyone agrees on the default either, see Kevin's email. Designing a new
>> language is going to be an uphill battle, even more so than enhancing
>> current plpgsql.
>
> Any ideas on what the *other* syntax could look like?
Well, I'm in the camp that the current default is fine...
- Heikki
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2014-09-02 13:58:05 | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |
| Previous Message | Joel Jacobson | 2014-09-02 13:52:36 | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |