On 01/09/14 20:42, Tom Lane wrote:
=?UTF-8?B?w4FsdmFybyBIZXJuw6FuZGV6IFRvcnRvc2E=?= <a...@nosys.es> writes:
      What I can add is that, if Postgres is to devote resources to a new
language, I would plan it with a broader scope. What would attract most
users? Would it bring non postgres users to Postgres? What could be one
of the killer features of any next version? My trivial answer to most of
these questions is: PL/SQL.
By that I suppose you mean "I wish it would act just like Oracle".
The problem with such a wish is that a lot of the incompatibilities
with Oracle are functions of the core SQL engine, not of the PL.
plpgsql already is about as close to PL/SQL as it's possible to get
without changing core Postgres behavior --- or at least, that was
the original design desire, and I don't think that it's failed in
any large degree.

                        regards, tom lane

It's true that some of the incompatibilities are the core engine, internal functions and so on, and that the plpgsql design goal was to achieve "similarity". But similarity is not code compatibility, and afaik, plpgsql is not code compatible with PL/SQL. Having 1:1 code compatibility, if possible, is a very well first step, only followed by the core functionalities you mention.

If postgres were going for a new language, why not implement one which, having the other suggested functionality, also has 1:1 PL/SQL code compatibility? I'm sure it's no trivial task, but one highly desirable.



Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to