Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2014-09-01 15:19:41 +0200, Joel Jacobson wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> It bad signal to have two languages plpgsql and plpgsql2. Who will believe
>>> to us so we will continue development of plpgsql?
>> Depends on how you define "development".
>> Bugfixes of plpgsql? Yes, of course.
>> New features? No, but that's a non-issue since we all know it's more
>> or less impossible to introduce new features without breaking
>> compatibility, I think you will agree on that, no?
> Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. There've been plenty of new features
> for plpgsql. You're not very convincing if you use bogus arguments like
> this.
And even more to the point: once plpgsql2 is released, the *exact same*
compatibility arguments will limit further development of it.
Perhaps, if you were very smart and designed a language from scratch
without worrying about whether it looked anything like plpgsql, you
could come up with something that would be easier to extend without
creating compatibility issues. But that's not what's being proposed here.
What is actually being proposed, AFAICS, is a one-shot fix for a bunch
of unfortunate choices. That might be worth doing, but let's not fool
ourselves about whether it's one-shot or not.
regards, tom lane