On Aug 5, 2009, at 4:55 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes:
Josh's position that "this should be standard SQL" is nonsense, or
at least he ought to be making that argument to the standards
committee
not us.
Huh? When did I say that?
Sorry, I think I got one of your messages confused with one of
Robert's.
Anyway,
I don't remember saying that either. SQL I think would be good;
standard doesn't matter to me, never mind whether a relevant standard
exists.
(This is not to say that I think we should deviate wantonly from the
standard, only that I have no problem with extensions.)
*Built-in* functions are just as good as extra syntax, as far as I'm
concerned.
Functions which require installing plpgsql, reading the docs,
creating a
function, pasting it in, and saving it are NOT as good; they are
unlikely to ever be used, except by the people who didn't really need
them in the first place.
Agreed, whatever we want to provide here should be available in a
vanilla installation. This might argue for providing a C-code
implementation instead of plpgsql, since I'm not sure we are yet
ready to have plpgsql force-installed. But we can certainly design
and prototype in plpgsql.
...Robert
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
