On 2014-09-01 12:00:48 +0200, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: > On 9/1/14 11:53 AM, Hannu Krosing wrote: > >>You're going to have to find a more gradual way of doing this. > >Probably a better way (and there has been some talk of it) is > >having some kind of PRAGMA functionality, or pl/pgsql specific > >LOCAL SET to affect "just this function" and not spill to nested > >functions as is the case for SETs now. > > I can't imagine how that would work for anyone who has thousands of > functions.
How's that fundamentally different from changing languages? If we had a way to *add* such attributes to *existing* functions I don't see the fundamental problem? > I've tried my best over the past ~year or so, but any attempts at breaking > backwards compatibility have been rejected. I really don't see any gradual > way of doing this. We either break things, live with what we have right > now, or create a new language. I think to some degree that was also influenced by the approach you took. Several of the changes didn't really have a meaningful explanation why they'd be helpful in the field. I.e. the change was explained, but not the reasoning *leading* to the change and which other solutions you thought about. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
