Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I'm unkeen. I see no technical advantage - it's just a matter of taste.
There is no "technical advantage" to case insensitive keywords, or dollar quoting, or a variety of other programming language features that don't change functionality but exist to make using the programming language easier.
We advertise that plpgsql is similar to plsql - we should not do anything to make that less so IMNSHO.
Do you *really* mean that? This principle would mean we should reject patches like the CONTINUE statement patch I just applied, for example, as PL/SQL has no such construct.
In any case, I think you are overestimating the value of strict PL/SQL compatibility. IMHO, PL/PgSQL should be a useful procedural programming language first, and a reimplementation of PL/SQL second. We should provide an equivalent feature (not necessarily with the same syntax) for all of PL/SQL's useful features, but I don't see the value in copying Oracle when PL/SQL's implementation of a feature is ugly, broken, or inconsistent with the rest of Postgres. It's not as if complete source-level compatibility with PL/SQL has been a goal for PL/PgSQL anyway (and besides, there are other people, like EnterpriseDB, who can provide that for those who need it).
Terseness is not always good, redundancy is not always bad.
Granted -- but why is redundancy a good thing here? -Neil ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
