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

Reply via email to