Re: PL/pgSQL 2

On 02/09/14 15:46, Craig Ringer wrote:

> was "is exactly why we need a new language" and that "All the clumsy
> stuff we cannot fix in plpgsql, can easily be fixed in plpgsql2, with
> the most beautiful syntax we can come up with." But you haven't said HOW
> you propose to fix this one case.

Unfortunately, there is likely to be a (large) variance of opinion 
concerning the details. In particular 'beautiful/elegant...'. Err - 
these things are mostly in the eye of the beholder. E.g: I might want 
this new shiny syntax to be lisp like, as that is beautiful (heh, 
kidding - but you should get the idea).

Cheers

Mark