Re: PL/pgSQL 2

2014-09-02 11:25 GMT+02:00 Álvaro Hernández Tortosa <aht(at)nosys(dot)es>:

>
> On 02/09/14 05:24, Craig Ringer wrote:
>
>> I couldn't disagree more.
>>
>> If we were to implement anything, it'd be PL/PSM
>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL/PSM). I'm sure it's as bizarre and
>> quirky as anything else the SQL committee has brought forth, but it's at
>> least a standard(ish) language.
>>
> So we'd choose a bizarre and quirky language instead of anything
> better just because it's standard. I'm sure current and prospective users
> will surely prefer a bizarre and quirky language that is standard approved,
> rather than a modern, comfortable, easy-to-use, that is not embodied by the
> ISO. No doubt ^_^
>
>
SQL/PSM is used in >>>DB2<<<, >>>Sybase Anywhere<<<, MySQL,

>
>
>> Creating a new language when there are already many existing contenders
>> is absolutely nonsensical. Other than PL/PSM the only thing that'd make
>> any sense would be to *pick a suitable existing language* like Lua or
>> JavaScript and bless it as a supported, always-available, in-core
>> language runtime that's compiled in by default.
>>
>
> That is in my opinion a way more sensible choice. To bless
> PL/JavaScript as an in-core language would be a very wise choice.
>
> Álvaro
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>