On 9/2/14 11:40 AM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote:
If we are to have another plpgsql-like language (like plpgsql2) and we could design it so it would attract many many users (let's not forget that Oracle may have around two orders of magnitude more users than pg), that would benefit us all greatly. Even if not perfect. Even if it is a longer project which spans more than one release. But just having the syntax (or most of it, maybe avoiding some complex unimplemented postgres features, if that required a huge effort) is a big win.
Have you looked at http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/plpgsql-porting.html already? As far as I can tell, that already *is* the case as far as the language goes. It seems to me that most of the stuff that's different between the two are things that are out of the control of the language (no autonomous transactions, function source code in a literal etc.)
For 9.4, we have the media already saying "Postgres has NoSQL capabilities" (which is only partially true). For x.y we could have the media saying "Postgres adds Oracle compatibility" (which would be only partially true). But that brings a lot of users to postgres, and that helps us all.
This would be a horrible, horrible lie.
.marko -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers