On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 02:48:43PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On mån, 2011-01-17 at 07:37 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > >> which, as Magnus points out, includes non-procedural languages > > >> (SQL). > > >> > > >> I think that "list languages" could be confusing to newcomers > > >> -- the very people who might be reading through the help output > > >> of psql for the first time -- who might suppose that > > >> "languages" has something to do with the character sets > > >> supported by PostgreSQL, and might not even be aware that a > > >> variety of procedural languages can be used inside the > > >> database. > > > > > > Fair point. > > > > Yeah. Procedural langauges may strictly be wrong, but people > > aren't likely to misunderstand it. > > The term "procedural" in this context originated with Oracle's > PL/SQL, which is a procedural language extension to the > non-procedural SQL language.
We can repurpose 'P' to mean, Programming or PostgreSQL, and have done :) Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
