On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 07:56:25PM -0700, David Wheeler wrote: > On May 16, 2006, at 19:52, Tom Lane wrote: > > >Distant ancestors aren't particularly relevant here. What plpgsql > >tries > >to be is a ripoff^H^H^H^H^H^Hsincere flattery of Oracle's PL/SQL. If > >modifying the loop variable is disallowed in PL/SQL, I'm all for > >disallowing it in plpgsql, otherwise not. > > Even if PL/SQL disallows it, why would you not allow it in PL/pgSQL? > So that it's easier to migrate from PostgreSQL to Oracle? > > If you only care about Oracle to PostgreSQL (and who wouldn't?), then > it in fact seems desirable for PL/pgSQL to be a superset of PL/SQL.
Well, I'd argue that if we were serious about the migration case we'd just add PL/SQL as a language. Presumably EnterpriseDB has done that, and might be willing to donate that to the community. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
