On 14/09/02 12:24, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 09/02/2014 08:09 AM, Neil Tiffin wrote: (...)
>> That should be enough alone to suggest postgreSQL start working on a modern, >> in core, fast, fully supported language. > > 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. For reference, and without wading into the general debate, there is an existing, albeit outdated and dormant PL/PSM implementation: http://pgfoundry.org/frs/?group_id=1000238 http://postgres.cz/wiki/SQL/PSM_Manual >From my (limited) experience with the MySQL variant, it makes PL/pgSQL look positively concise and elegant. Though that's just my subjective opinion (possibly coloured by the particular implementation) and not necessarily a pro/contra argument ;). Regards Ian Barwick -- Ian Barwick http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
