On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> When you suggest ISAM, that's like saying "demolish your house and >> build a new one" when all I want is to make small but important >> changes to what I already do as a professional on a daily basis. > > Go right ahead: this is an open source project, after all, and with an > extremely permissive license to boot. You can modify your copy of > PL/pgsql, or clone it and make PL/joelsql and then change whatever you > like. Optionally, you could then publish that on PGXN for others to > use and contribute to. > > On the other hand, if what you want is for other people to make > changes to the official versions of PostgreSQL that are supported and > maintained by the community, then that's a different thing altogether. > It entails two challenges: first, to persuade the community that those > changes will be good for everyone, not just you; and second, > convincing them that they (rather than you) should be the ones to do > the work. So far I'd say you're losing the first argument, and I > expect you'll lose the second one, too (barring a financial > transaction, of course). > > I'm not trying to brush you off here - I understand your concerns, and > they're not stupid. But, like most of the people who have commented, > I don't agree that your proposals would be an improvement for the > majority of people. There are several ways to deal with that, but if > your goal is to get those changes made in the PostgreSQL community > then you have to acknowledge the competing concerns to be just as > valid as your own and come up with a proposal everyone can live with.
If my company would write code in PL/joelsql, I think I would have a hard time through any technical due diligence in the future. :-) The main reason why I'm so eager of finding a support from you, the majority of other readers on this list, is of course because I think we as a group can come up with a much better solution to the problem than what I could on my own. And for me it's better if we can agree on *something* which improves my and others life to *some* extent, rather than to just sitting here silent waiting another 16 years for PL/pgSQL 2 to develop itself. I can certainly live with a more SQLish syntax than the one I had in mind. I'm less concerned about the verbosity of the language, if I wanted a condensed language I should have opted for some other language in the first place, so that's not my problem. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers