| From: | Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |
| Date: | 2014-09-01 15:19:39 |
| Message-ID: | CAASwCXcxWMWOPM20CEnDNKbM1nQELQp0Px7Vr6rbOHT=QF7A-g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 09/01/2014 10:41 PM, Joel Jacobson wrote:
>> This is exactly why we need a new language.
>> All the clumsy stuff we cannot fix in plpgsql, can easily be fixed in
>> plpgsql2, with the most beautiful syntax we can come up with.
>>
>> I guess it's a question if we want to support things like this. If we
>> want to, then we also want a new language.
>
> Given how much bike shedding occurs around trivial features, can you
> imagine how long that'd take?
I wasn't aware of the expression "bike shedding" so I had to look it up.
It apparently means "spend the majority of its time on relatively
unimportant but easy-to-grasp issues".
If you feel the development of plpgsql falls into this category, that
most time is spent on the smaller unimportant things, isn't that a
clear sign we need plpgsql2, for there to be any hope of progress on
the important things?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G Johnston | 2014-09-01 15:33:37 | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2014-09-01 15:16:17 | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |