Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes:
>> Josh's position that "this should be standard SQL" is nonsense, or
>> at least he ought to be making that argument to the standards committee
>> not us.
> Huh? When did I say that?
Sorry, I think I got one of your messages confused with one of Robert's.
Anyway,
> *Built-in* functions are just as good as extra syntax, as far as I'm
> concerned.
> Functions which require installing plpgsql, reading the docs, creating a
> function, pasting it in, and saving it are NOT as good; they are
> unlikely to ever be used, except by the people who didn't really need
> them in the first place.
Agreed, whatever we want to provide here should be available in a
vanilla installation. This might argue for providing a C-code
implementation instead of plpgsql, since I'm not sure we are yet
ready to have plpgsql force-installed. But we can certainly design
and prototype in plpgsql.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
