On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
> yes, but there is minimal agreement of direction of movement. I am not alone
> who are thinking so your proposal is not good for general usage.
Minimal agreement? That's not true. The other group of users have been
discussing
a completely new language, which is a different discussion than the
one on PL/pgSQL 2.
Just because you think a new language is what we need, doesn't mean
you automatically
would think it's not a good idea to improve PL/pgSQL and create PL/pgSQL 2.