2014-09-03 7:07 GMT+02:00 Joel Jacobson <j...@trustly.com>: > On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 12:19 AM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > > On 09/01/2014 02:04 AM, Joel Jacobson wrote: > >> Please share your wish list of things you would want in plpgsql2 which > >> are not possible to implement in plpgsql because they could possibly > >> break compatibility. > > > > Well, if I were designing a new procedural SQL extension language, I > > wouldn't base it on the bastard child of ADA and SQL89. I would come up > > with something new. One of the critical features such a new language > > would have would be the ability to dynamically generate queries > > *without* using string manipulation and EXECUTE. > > > > Otherwise, improvements to PL/pgSQL amount to the proverbial porcine > > makeover. > > That's like if I would say "I want to repaint my house", you would > reply "You should build a new house instead". :-) > > Though, I think I can understand your point of view here: > > 1. For a new developer who is starting out a new project from scratch, > and is looking for a nice PL for PostgreSQL, such a language you > are describing would be a perfect fit. > > 2. For all developers who already have large projects written in PL/pgSQL, > and > - don't have that many problems with the language, > - are extremely productive in the language, > - love the syntax, > - trust the language, > - would never want to get a divorce from the language, > - but are very keen on *improving* the existing language, > all such developers would be very interested in PL/pgSQL 2, > but not so interested in any completely new PL. > > I fall into the second category. But I understand you are more interested > in > writing completely new projects than improving on your existing code, > and that's a very valid argument for all such users. > > The main benefits I see with making PL/pgSQL 2 almost-compatible with > PL/pgSQL, > and by developing it inside the same code base as PL/pgSQL are the > following: > > * Some PL/pgSQL code would compile and run in PL/pgSQL 2 without any > modifications > * Most PL/pgSQL code would compile and run in PL/pgSQL 2 with minor > modifications > * Most PL/pgSQL users would quickly be productive in the new language > after reading the "Changes" doc. > * The existing PL/pgSQL codebase is stable and trusted. If PL/pgSQL 2 > is based on it, we will only have to understand and test the changes. > * PL/pgSQL was released16 years ago. It has survived time and is still > The PL for PostgreSQL. In those 16 years we have a learned a lot by > using the language. It's time for a new version of the language. >
yes, but there is minimal agreement of direction of movement. I am not alone who are thinking so your proposal is not good for general usage. Pavel > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers >