On 2014-09-06 6:31 PM, Jan Wieck wrote:
On 09/06/2014 12:17 PM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
OK, fine.  But that's not what I suggested on the wiki page, and is also
not what I'm arguing for here right now.  What the message you referred
to was about was the condescending attitude where we were told to "think
in terms of sets" (paraphrased), without considering whether that's even
possible to do *all the time*.


SQL is, by definition, a set oriented language. The name Procedural
Language / pgSQL was supposed to suggest that this language adds some
procedural elements to the PostgreSQL database. I never intended to
create a 100% procedural language. It was from the very beginning, 16
years ago, intended to keep the set orientation when it comes to DML
statements inside of functions.

No matter how hard you
try to make them special, in my mind they are not.

Of course they are. That's why you have PRIMARY KEYs and UNIQUE constraints.


.marko


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

Reply via email to