On 1/10/17 8:44 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Peter Eisentraut > <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com > <mailto:peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com>> wrote: > > It's not like PL/pgSQL is the king of brevity. > > > This is essentially saying "PL/PgSQL isn't perfect, so we shouldn't try > and make it better". I hear this argument a lot, and as long as people > keep rejecting improvements for this reason they can keep saying it. > It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I'm not making that argument. But if the plan here is that PL/pgSQL is too verbose, let's make it less verbose, then maybe, but let's see a more complete plan for that. The current syntax was chosen because it is SQL-compatible. Adding redundant syntax to save a few characters without any new functionality (performance, resource usage, safety, etc.) is a weak argument in the overall scheme of things. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers