| From: | David Wheeler <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL 'i = i + 1' Syntax |
| Date: | 2006-05-17 02:56:25 |
| Message-ID: | 5E47F016-6143-46DB-B511-14F4B58F389D@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On May 16, 2006, at 19:52, Tom Lane wrote:
> Distant ancestors aren't particularly relevant here. What plpgsql
> tries
> to be is a ripoff^H^H^H^H^H^Hsincere flattery of Oracle's PL/SQL. If
> modifying the loop variable is disallowed in PL/SQL, I'm all for
> disallowing it in plpgsql, otherwise not.
Even if PL/SQL disallows it, why would you not allow it in PL/pgSQL?
So that it's easier to migrate from PostgreSQL to Oracle?
If you only care about Oracle to PostgreSQL (and who wouldn't?), then
it in fact seems desirable for PL/pgSQL to be a superset of PL/SQL.
But that's must MYH.
Best,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-05-17 03:46:52 | Re: pg_dump and backslash escapes |
| Previous Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2006-05-17 02:52:21 | Re: audit table containing Select statements submitted |