2017-01-11 20:53 GMT+01:00 Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com>: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Peter Eisentraut > <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > The current syntax was chosen because it is SQL-compatible. Adding > > redundant syntax to save a few characters without any new functionality > > (performance, resource usage, safety, etc.) is a weak argument in the > > overall scheme of things. > > Yeah -- exactly. The few minor things that are not 100% SQL > compatible I find to be major headaches. Incompatible usage of INTO > for example. >
We not designed INTO usage in plpgsql - it is PL/SQL heritage. PL/SQL = ADA + Oracle SQL; -- but sometimes the result is not perfect - Ada was not designed be integrated with SQL > > This thread has been going on for quite some time now and is starting > to become somewhat circular. Perhaps we ought to organize the > various ideas and pain points presented in a wiki along with > conclusions, and in some cases if there is no solution that is > compatible with the current syntax. > There is a language that is much better integrated with SQL - SQL/PSM http://postgres.cz/wiki/SQL/PSM_Manual It is less verbose, but still verbose language. It is static typed language - so it can be bad for some people. But due design based on SQL integration from base, there is less conflicts between SQL and PL. Regards Pavel > merlin >
