| From: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |
| Date: | 2014-09-06 16:33:32 |
| Message-ID: | 540B375C.5040109@joh.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-09-06 6:31 PM, Jan Wieck wrote:
> On 09/06/2014 12:17 PM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
>> OK, fine. But that's not what I suggested on the wiki page, and is also
>> not what I'm arguing for here right now. What the message you referred
>> to was about was the condescending attitude where we were told to "think
>> in terms of sets" (paraphrased), without considering whether that's even
>> possible to do *all the time*.
>
> SQL is, by definition, a set oriented language. The name Procedural
> Language / pgSQL was supposed to suggest that this language adds some
> procedural elements to the PostgreSQL database. I never intended to
> create a 100% procedural language. It was from the very beginning, 16
> years ago, intended to keep the set orientation when it comes to DML
> statements inside of functions.
>
> No matter how hard you
> try to make them special, in my mind they are not.
Of course they are. That's why you have PRIMARY KEYs and UNIQUE
constraints.
.marko
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2014-09-06 16:37:29 | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |
| Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2014-09-06 16:31:05 | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |