2016-03-11 22:32 GMT+01:00 Joel Jacobson <j...@trustly.com>:

> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:08 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I don't think my experience in this area is as deep as you seem to
> > think.  I can tell you that most of the requests EnterpriseDB gets for
> > PL/pgsql enhancements involve wanting it to be more like Oracle's
> > PL/SQL, which of course has very little overlap with the stuff that
> > you're interested in.
> Do you know who could possibly be more experienced
> with companies who are heavy users of PL/pgSQL in the community?
> and/or,
> Do you know of any companies who officially are heavy users of PL/pgSQL?
> The only other company I can think of is Zalado, but of course there
> are many more,
> I just wish I knew their names, because I want to compile a wish list with
> proposed changes from as many companies who are heavy users of
> PL/pgSQL as possible.
> That's the only way to push this forward. As you say, we need a
> consensus and input
> from a broad range of heavy users, not just from people on this list
> with feelings
> and opinions who might not actually be heavy users themselves.
> Of course almost everybody on this list uses PL/pgSQL from time to
> time or even daily,
> but it's a completely different thing to write an entire backend
> system in the language,
> it's first then when you start to become really excited of e.g. not
> having to type
> at least 30 characters of text every time you do an UPDATE/INSERT
> to be sure you modified exactly one row.

I afraid so you try to look on your use case as global/generic issue. The
PL/SQL, ADA. PL/pgSQL are verbose languages, and too shortcuts does the
languages dirty. In this point we have different opinion.

I proposed some enhanced PLpgSQL API with a possibility to create a
extension that can enforce your requested behave. The implementation can
not be hard, and it can coverage some special/individual requests well.



Reply via email to