Re: PL/pgSQL 1.2

On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> When you suggest ISAM, that's like saying "demolish your house and
>> build a new one" when all I want is to make small but important
>> changes to what I already do as a professional on a daily basis.
>
> Go right ahead: this is an open source project, after all, and with an
> extremely permissive license to boot. You can modify your copy of
> PL/pgsql, or clone it and make PL/joelsql and then change whatever you
> like. Optionally, you could then publish that on PGXN for others to
> use and contribute to.
>
> On the other hand, if what you want is for other people to make
> changes to the official versions of PostgreSQL that are supported and
> maintained by the community, then that's a different thing altogether.
> It entails two challenges: first, to persuade the community that those
> changes will be good for everyone, not just you; and second,
> convincing them that they (rather than you) should be the ones to do
> the work. So far I'd say you're losing the first argument, and I
> expect you'll lose the second one, too (barring a financial
> transaction, of course).
>
> I'm not trying to brush you off here - I understand your concerns, and
> they're not stupid. But, like most of the people who have commented,
> I don't agree that your proposals would be an improvement for the
> majority of people. There are several ways to deal with that, but if
> your goal is to get those changes made in the PostgreSQL community
> then you have to acknowledge the competing concerns to be just as
> valid as your own and come up with a proposal everyone can live with.

If my company would write code in PL/joelsql, I think I would have a hard
time through any technical due diligence in the future. :-)

The main reason why I'm so eager of finding a support from you,
the majority of other readers on this list, is of course because I think
we as a group can come up with a much better solution to the problem
than what I could on my own. And for me it's better if we can agree on
*something* which improves my and others life to *some* extent,
rather than to just sitting here silent waiting another 16 years for
PL/pgSQL 2 to
develop itself.

I can certainly live with a more SQLish syntax than the one I had in mind.

I'm less concerned about the verbosity of the language, if I wanted a condensed
language I should have opted for some other language in the first place,
so that's not my problem.