2016-03-11 23:22 GMT+01:00 Joel Jacobson <j...@trustly.com>: > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 5:09 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> What we need is more input on proposed changes from other companies > >> who are also heavy users of PL/pgSQL. > >> > >> Only then can we move forward. It's like Robert is saying, there is a > >> risk for bikeshedding here, > >> we must widen our perspectives and get better understanding for how > >> other heavy users are using PL/pgSQL. > > > > > > I disagree with this opinion - this is community sw, not commercial. We > can > > do nothing if we don't find a agreement. > > I disagree with your disagreement. > > The users are what matters, and many of them are of course not on this > list (since this is a list for hackers), so we need to reach out to > the users, and those are companies/websites/nonprofits/governments. > So discussing proposed changes on this list will take us absolutely > nowhere, without further input from actual heavy users. > Once we do have input from the heavy users, then and only then can we > continue discussing things on this list, but before then it's kind of > pointless, because we don't know what the most commonly proposed > changes are, not you, not me. The risk of bikeshedding is just too > big, like Robert pointed out. >
I sent a list of requested features. Really, I have not any request from companies when I worked, did training, consultations for less verbosity or significant changes in languages. The people miss the features from Oracle, MSSQL. > > >> Pavel, do you know of any such companies? > > Probably the biggest company with pretty large code of PL/pgSQL was > Skype, > > but I have not any info about current state. > > True! I had almost forgotten about them after Microsoft acquired them. > Let's hope they are still on PostgreSQL. I'll check it out, thanks. >
