On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 09/01/2014 10:41 PM, Joel Jacobson wrote:
>> This is exactly why we need a new language.
>> 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.
>>
>> I guess it's a question if we want to support things like this. If we
>> want to, then we also want a new language.
>
> Given how much bike shedding occurs around trivial features, can you
> imagine how long that'd take?
I wasn't aware of the expression "bike shedding" so I had to look it up.
It apparently means "spend the majority of its time on relatively
unimportant but easy-to-grasp issues".
If you feel the development of plpgsql falls into this category, that
most time is spent on the smaller unimportant things, isn't that a
clear sign we need plpgsql2, for there to be any hope of progress on
the important things?