Re: PL/pgSQL 2

2014-09-02 11:50 GMT+02:00 Álvaro Hernández Tortosa <aht(at)nosys(dot)es>:

>
> On 02/09/14 11:31, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 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,
>
>
> That's a way better argument that it's standard :)))
>
> Still, I think postgres is in the position of attracting more Oracle
> than DB2+Sybase+MySQL users
>

Not all can be happy :)

We can implement SQL/PSM in conformity with ANSI SQL. But we cannot to
implement PL/SQL be in 20% compatible with oracle - Aggegates, pipe
functions, collections, without rewriting lot code.

I remember lot of projects that promises compatibility with Oracle based on
Firebird -- all are dead. Now situation is little bit different - there are
big press for migration from Oracle, but Oracle is too big monster.

Pavel

>
> Álvaro
>
>