From: | Pavel Stehule <stehule(at)kix(dot)fsv(dot)cvut(dot)cz> |
---|---|
To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pl/pgsql: END verbosity |
Date: | 2005-06-26 19:52:26 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0506262137110.27084-100000@kix.fsv.cvut.cz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, Neil Conway wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > It is required by the SQL standard.
>
> No, it isn't -- PL/PgSQL is not defined by the SQL standard. I guess
> you're referring to SQL/PSM, but that has only a passing resemblance to
> PL/PgSQL. Implementing SQL/PSM in some form would definitely be worth
> doing (especially now that MySQL have), but I haven't seen any plans to
> do that by adapting PL/PgSQL to SQL/PSM.
PL/pgSQL is different language than SQL/PSM and is little bit nonsenc
adapting them to SQL/PSM. PL/SQL live still - Oracle did some enhancing,
and we can do it too.
Some parts both languages are similar and some enough different. I had
plan start develop new interpret for SQL/PSM two years ago, but I hadn't
knowleages at that time. Situation is different now. If anybody wont to
work on SQL/PSM I will go too. Solution is another pl - pl/psm. We can
adapt gram.y plpgsql to psm
Regards
Pavel Stehule
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-26 19:52:29 | Re: tsearch2 changes need backpatching? |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-06-26 19:52:10 | Re: language handlers in public schema? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-26 19:55:18 | Re: language handlers in public schema? |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-06-26 19:52:10 | Re: language handlers in public schema? |