| From: | Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |
| Date: | 2014-09-02 13:36:34 |
| Message-ID: | CAASwCXckO+2oscLBU3S1cirdK3dcTogL-cQ2FpGKosf4EEXCBw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> It is way how to do COBOL from plpgsql. I am against it. Start to develop
> new language what will support fast development, but it is wrong way for
> plpgsql - and It is out my interest
Are you saying COBOL by default update's one row and throws an error otherwise?
In what way could *not* changing the syntax of a standard UPDATE
command, but changing the *behaviour*, in plpgsql2, be deemed to be a
step in the COBOL direction?
I don't want a new language, I love plpgsql, I just want to love it a
bit more, I don't think I have to clarify on that any more.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | ktm@rice.edu | 2014-09-02 13:37:42 | Re: [REVIEW] Re: Compression of full-page-writes |
| Previous Message | Tomonari Katsumata | 2014-09-02 13:35:11 | Re: proposal: rounding up time value less than its unit. |