On 11/18/14, 9:31 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Frankly, I find this whole proposal, and all the suggested alternatives,
somewhat ill-conceived. PLPGSQL is a wordy language. If you want something more
terse, use something else. Adding these sorts of syntactic sugar warts onto the
language doesn't seem like a terribly good way to proceed.
Such as?
The enormous advantage of plpgsql is how easy it is to run SQL. Every other PL
I've looked at makes that WAY harder. And that's assuming you're in an
environment where you can install another PL.
And honestly, I've never really found plpgsql to be terribly wordy except in a few cases
("assert" being one of them). My general experience has been that when I'm
doing an IF (other than assert), I'm doing multiple things in the IF block, so it's
really not that big a deal.
As for why not do this in a separate function; yes, you can do that. But then
you've needlessly added to your context stack, it's going to be a lot slower,
and you can only really replace RAISE's functionality if you're in a version
that has format().
If someone has another brain-flash on how to make this better I'm all ears. But I don't think
arguments like "use another PL" or "it's just syntax sugar" improve things for
our users.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
