2017-01-11 20:53 GMT+01:00 Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com>:

> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> Yeah -- exactly.  The few minor things that are not 100% SQL
> compatible I find to be major headaches.  Incompatible usage of INTO
> for example.

We not designed INTO usage in plpgsql - it is PL/SQL heritage.

PL/SQL = ADA + Oracle SQL; -- but sometimes the result is not perfect - Ada
was not designed be integrated with SQL

> This thread has been going on for quite some time now and is starting
> to become somewhat circular.   Perhaps we ought to organize the
> various ideas and pain points presented in a wiki along with
> conclusions, and in some cases if there is no solution that is
> compatible with the current syntax.

There is a language that is much better integrated with SQL - SQL/PSM


It is less verbose, but still verbose language. It is static typed language
- so it can be bad for some people.

But due design based on SQL integration from base, there is less conflicts
between SQL and PL.



> merlin

Reply via email to