2014-09-02 11:25 GMT+02:00 Álvaro Hernández Tortosa <a...@nosys.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, > > >> Creating a new language when there are already many existing contenders >> is absolutely nonsensical. Other than PL/PSM the only thing that'd make >> any sense would be to *pick a suitable existing language* like Lua or >> JavaScript and bless it as a supported, always-available, in-core >> language runtime that's compiled in by default. >> > > That is in my opinion a way more sensible choice. To bless > PL/JavaScript as an in-core language would be a very wise choice. > > Álvaro > > > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers >
