Re: PL/pgSQL 2

On 09/02/2014 05:44 AM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote:
>
> On 02/09/14 11:34, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
>> On 02/09/14 21:25, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote:
>>>
>>> On 02/09/14 05:24, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>>> I couldn't disagree more.
>>>>
>>>> If we were to implement anything, it'd be PL/PSM
>>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL/PSM). I'm sure it's as bizarre and
>>>> quirky as anything else the SQL committee has brought forth, but 
>>>> it's at
>>>> least a standard(ish) language.
>>>      So we'd choose a bizarre and quirky language instead of anything
>>> better just because it's standard. I'm sure current and prospective
>>> users will surely prefer a bizarre and quirky language that is standard
>>> approved, rather than a modern, comfortable, easy-to-use, that is not
>>> embodied by the ISO. No doubt ^_^
>>>
>>
>> Well there is the risk that by randomly adding new syntax to PL/pgSQL 
>> we turn it in a bizarre and quirky *non standard* language. Part of 
>> the attraction of PL/pgsql is that it is Ada like - if we break that 
>> too much then...well...that would be bad. So I think a careful 
>> balance is needed, to add new features that keep the spirit of the 
>> original language.
>>
>
>     I agree. I think I haven't suggested adding new syntax to 
> pl/pgsql. But having its syntax similar to ADA is IMHO not something 
> good. I'm sure few prospective postgres users would be compelled to 
> that. They are compelled about JavaScript, python, Scala or Ruby, to 
> name a few, but definitely not ADA.


Just as a small nit pick - the name of the language is not ADA, but Ada. 
It isn't an acronym. The language is named after Ada Lovelace, arguably 
the world's first programmer. If you're not familiar with modern Ada, 
let me recommend the newly published "Programming in Ada 2012" by John 
Barnes. But I digress.

JavaScript would actually be quite a good alternative. However, using it 
involves something others have objected to, namely calling SQL via a 
function call. It's true that plpgsql lets you call SQL commands without 
explicitly invoking SPI. OTOH, it actually relies on SPI under the hood 
a lot more that other PLs, which I have little doubt is responsible for 
timings like this:
   andrew=# do $$ declare x int = 1; i int = 1; begin while i <   10000000 loop i := i + 1; x := x + 46; end loop; raise notice ' x =   %',x; end; $$;   NOTICE:   x = 459999955   DO   Time: 13222.195 ms   andrew=# do $$ var x = 1; var i = 1; while (i < 10000000) { i += 1;   x += 46; } plv8.elog(NOTICE, "x = " + x); $$ language plv8;   NOTICE:  x = 459999955   DO   Time: 27.976 ms

But I'm not suggesting we should implement a Javascript PL in core either.

Finally, +1 to Tom's suggestion upthread that we implement different 
behaviours via pragmas rather than some new offshoot language. Maybe a 
GUC could specify a default set of such pragmas, so you wouldn't need to 
decorate every function with them.

cheers

andrew