On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 09/01/2014 10:41 PM, Joel Jacobson wrote: >> This is exactly why we need a new language. >> All the clumsy stuff we cannot fix in plpgsql, can easily be fixed in >> plpgsql2, with the most beautiful syntax we can come up with. >> >> I guess it's a question if we want to support things like this. If we >> want to, then we also want a new language. > > Given how much bike shedding occurs around trivial features, can you > imagine how long that'd take?
I wasn't aware of the expression "bike shedding" so I had to look it up. It apparently means "spend the majority of its time on relatively unimportant but easy-to-grasp issues". If you feel the development of plpgsql falls into this category, that most time is spent on the smaller unimportant things, isn't that a clear sign we need plpgsql2, for there to be any hope of progress on the important things? -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
