On 2014-09-01 12:00:48 +0200, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> On 9/1/14 11:53 AM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> >>You're going to have to find a more gradual way of doing this.
> >Probably a better way (and there has been some talk of it) is
> >having some kind of PRAGMA functionality, or pl/pgsql specific
> >LOCAL SET to affect "just this function" and not spill to nested
> >functions as is the case for SETs now.
>
> I can't imagine how that would work for anyone who has thousands of
> functions.
How's that fundamentally different from changing languages? If we had a
way to *add* such attributes to *existing* functions I don't see the
fundamental problem?
> I've tried my best over the past ~year or so, but any attempts at breaking
> backwards compatibility have been rejected. I really don't see any gradual
> way of doing this. We either break things, live with what we have right
> now, or create a new language.
I think to some degree that was also influenced by the approach you
took. Several of the changes didn't really have a meaningful explanation
why they'd be helpful in the field. I.e. the change was explained, but
not the reasoning *leading* to the change and which other solutions you
thought about.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services