On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not direly opposed to most of what's on that page,
> but I'm not excited about most of it, either.

May I ask, what improvements of PL/pgSQL would you personally be most
excited about,
if you or someone else would have unlimited resources to hack on it?

> I bet if we canvassed 10 different companies that made heavy use of PL/pgsql 
> they'd all have
> a list of proposed changes like that, and I bet some of them would
> conflict with each other, and I bet if we did all that stuff the
> average PL/pgsql user's life would not be much better, but the manual
> would be much longer.

You as a professional PostgreSQL consultant obviously have a lot of more
contact than me with other companies who make heavy use of PL/pgSQL.

I'm assuming your bet on these proposed changes in conflict you talk about
are based on things you've picked up IRL from companies you've been
working with.

What would you say are the top most commonly proposed changes
from companies that make heavy use of PL/pgSQL, and which of those are
in conflict?

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

Reply via email to