On 01/09/14 21:08, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2014-09-01 20:58 GMT+02:00 Álvaro Hernández Tortosa <a...@nosys.es
<mailto:a...@nosys.es>>:
On 01/09/14 20:42, Tom Lane wrote:
=?UTF-8?B?w4FsdmFybyBIZXJuw6FuZGV6IFRvcnRvc2E=?= <a...@nosys.es
<mailto: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.
It is false expectation - language is only one part .. and plpgsql
isn't to far. There are different system of modules, different system
of custom aggregates, mainly with PL/SQL is very complex library
dbms_xxxx. This library is maybe more complex than current Postgres base.
OK. Understood. Full compatibility may be a longer-term goal. But
why it's bad to have the same syntax at a language -not library- level?
It is task for commercial project --- not all Postgres users need a
Oracle compatibility layer.
Certainly not all users need that layer. But I'm sure few would
complain to have it.
Besides that, why do you say it is meant for a commercial project?
If it is because postgres should not listen to users willing to migrate
from Oracle --then we're screwed, losing the biggest opportunity (of
attracting a large crowd of users) of recent times. If it is because
it's too complex... well, I don't think the postgres community (as a
whole) have less resources than commercial projects.
Next, I am sure, so it is in contradiction to Joel proposal.
That's not my business ;P
No, really: if there is a new version of a "language", which
modifies the current syntax of plpgsql; if plpgsql is already very
similar to PL/SQL: why not rather than coming up with a new syntax use
an already existing one? One that many, many more users than plpgsql,
already know?
Regards,
Álvaro
