Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Josh Berkus wrote: >> Hackers, >> >> Just had a feature request from Wheeler, and I don't see why it shouldn't >> go on our todo list. > > I think you're asking for more scriptability in psql. Personally I > think that would be a great idea, but we need a lot more than what's > being proposed here. We'll also need loops, conditionals, etc. We've > had patches for those submitted over the years, but one at a time they > are easily rejected because they're so obviously incomplete.
FWIW I disagree. I think that's a recipe for ending up with a hacky turing-complete but awkward-as-hell language. If you want a language to write arbitrary database driving code with loops, conditionals, etc then I would recommend going with any of the existing fully functional languages. You can write your scripts in perl, python, ruby, or whatever. If we do it ourselves we'll always have a terrible half-baked language. Building a whole language with clean syntax and consistent semantics is a lot of work. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostGIS support! -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
