On 01/09/14 23:31, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> On 2014-09-01 11:11 PM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote:
>> No, really: if there is a new version of a "language", which
>> modifies the current syntax of plpgsql; if plpgsql is already very
>> similar to PL/SQL: why not rather than coming up with a new syntax use
>> an already existing one? One that many, many more users than plpgsql,
>> already know?
>
> The point isn't to create a new language just for the sake of creating
> a new one. It's to fix the problems PL/PgSQL has. If we're just
> going to trade the problems in PL/PgSQL with another set of problems
> implemented by PL/SQL, we're just worse off in the end.
> Agreed. But if we can solve them --only if we could-- by leveraging
a "syntax" that happens to be:
- Similar to that of plpgsql (exactly the same as plpgsql2 would be
"similar" to plpgsql)
- Already known by a large, very large, group of users
we would be way better off. If there are unresolved problems in the
PL/SQL current implementation, doing a superset of it may make sense.
Regards,
Álvaro