Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > Jonah H. Harris wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> The fundamental problem I've got with this patch is that it adds 400K > >> of new code (and that's just the code, not counting documentation or > >> regression tests) that we'll have to maintain, to obtain a feature that > >> so far as I've heard there is precisely zero demand for. > >> > > > > We have a customer that wants to use it as part of a MySQL-to-Postgres > > migration. > > > > > > Using an implementation like this? I suspect anyone wanting to migrate > their existing SQL/PSM stuff to Postgres will be less than impressed by > our "function body as a string" mechanism.
What is your point? That because of the $$ strings they might as well rewrite the whole thing in PL/pgSQL. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches