On 1/10/17 8:44 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Peter Eisentraut
> <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com
> <mailto:peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>> wrote:
>
> It's not like PL/pgSQL is the king of brevity.
>
>
> This is essentially saying "PL/PgSQL isn't perfect, so we shouldn't try
> and make it better". I hear this argument a lot, and as long as people
> keep rejecting improvements for this reason they can keep saying it.
> It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I'm not making that argument. But if the plan here is that PL/pgSQL is
too verbose, let's make it less verbose, then maybe, but let's see a
more complete plan for that.
The current syntax was chosen because it is SQL-compatible. Adding
redundant syntax to save a few characters without any new functionality
(performance, resource usage, safety, etc.) is a weak argument in the
overall scheme of things.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services