On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote:
> On 09/02/2014 09:06 AM, Joel Jacobson wrote:
>> For me, the most important is to not break *most* of existing plpgsql
>> code, but it's OK to break *some*.
>> And when breaking it, it should be trivial to rewrite it to become
>> compatible.
> I think the next step would be to list all the things you don't like with
> current PL/pgSQL, and write down how you would want them to work if you were
> starting with a clean slate. Let's see how wide the consensus is that the
> new syntax/behavior is better than what we have now. We can then start
> thinking how to best adapt them to the current PL/pgSQL syntax and codebase.
> Maybe with pragmas, or new commands, or deprecating the old behavior; the
> best approach depends on the details, and how widely desired the new
> behavior is, so we need to see that first.
> I'd suggest collecting the ideas on a wiki page, and once you have some
> concrete set of features and syntax there, start a new thread to discuss
> them. Others will probably have other features they want, like the simpler
> "DROP TABLE ?" thing.

Excellent idea, I'm on it!

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

Reply via email to