On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> wrote: > yes, but there is minimal agreement of direction of movement. I am not alone > who are thinking so your proposal is not good for general usage.
Minimal agreement? That's not true. The other group of users have been discussing a completely new language, which is a different discussion than the one on PL/pgSQL 2. Just because you think a new language is what we need, doesn't mean you automatically would think it's not a good idea to improve PL/pgSQL and create PL/pgSQL 2. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
