2016-01-14 20:09 GMT+01:00 Marko Tiikkaja <ma...@joh.to>: > On 2016-01-14 8:06 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > >> Probably there is less risk than 7 years ago, but still creating own >> syntax >> isn't the best idea. This is syntactic sugar only and different from ANSi >> SQL or common standard. >> > > So is RETURNING,
is it ANSI SQL redundant? > UPSERT, the behave is partially different than MERGE, so different syntax is 100% valid > PL/PgSQL and many other useful features. > PL/pgSQL is PL/SQL clone, and because the base is Ada, it cannot be compatible with SQL/PSM. Regards Pavel > > > .m >
