On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 2:52 AM, Joel Jacobson <j...@trustly.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 8:56 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Jim, Marko, Joel - is there a place, features where we can find a partial 
>> agreement? If it is, then we can move our view there.
> I have decided I definitively want a new language, and I'm willing to
> pay for it.

well, as they say, "money talks" :-D.

> Hopefully the community will join forces and contribute with ideas and
> code, but with or without you or the rest of the community, plpgsql2
> is going to happen.
> Call it pltrustly or plpgsql2, I don't care. I just care about ending
> my suffering from being forced writing plpgsql every day. It sucks,
> and I'm going to end it.

Curious, are you mainly troubled by the 'INTO STRICT' family of
problems? Or something else?  Pavel has scored some points with PRAGMA
syntax and ISTM that does not require compatibility break.

> And please kill all these GUCs ideas. The best thing with PostgreSQL
> is the natural expected behaviour of the default configuration.
> Contrary to MySQL where you have to enable lots and lots of
> configuration options just to get a behaviour you expect as a novice
> user.

I think there is a lot of support for this point of view.  Jim is
notable outlier here, but for the most part we don't do language
behavior changes with GUC.

> It's much better to just come together and agree on whatever we have
> learned during the last 15 years of PL/pgSQL1, and sample all ideas
> during a year maybe, and decide what to put into PL/pgSQL2. To make it
> useful, we should aim to not break compatibility for _most_ code, but
> accept some necessary rewrites of functions with deprecated
> anti-patterns.

Agreed: If you want to break compatibility, pushing a new language is
the better way than GUC.   If you got consensus on this, having both
languages side by side supported for a while (maybe 4-5 releases) is
they way to go, and finally the only language is frozen and moved to
extension.  But this is a lot of work and aggravation, are you *sure*
you can only get what you want with a full compatibility break?

With respect to your company developers specifically?  I'm genuinely
curious if you've taken a good look at pl/v8 and why you've determined
it's not suitable to move forward with.  It's got a different set of
headaches, but is really fast, and sometimes wonder if with some
alternative preprocessing (like coffeescript but geared towards SQL)
could have some long term promise.


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

Reply via email to