-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:00:21 +0100 "Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Primary goal is ANSI SQL conformance (for me). Current PL/pgSQL isn't > compatible and it will not be compatible in future (we have different > implementation of SRF and really specific implementation of OUT > parameters). But why artificially create bigger dif between PL/pgSQL > and PL/SQL? > > I am sorry, I can't to speak in English gently (because my English is > all else than English), and some my notes are maybe too much hard. If primary goal is ANSI SQL conformance shouldn't we be focusing on pl/psm not plpgsql? (yes I am aware they are similar syntatically) Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake - -- The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/ Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate SELECT 'Training', 'Consulting' FROM vendor WHERE name = 'CMD' -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHj4udATb/zqfZUUQRAgyeAJ9Cb9pAMiWvP/JDv6F89JPBAh2IPACeI6a6 0yl+dXdE9XyCEoGNCeb9EXw= =oHVb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
