On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote: > On 09/02/2014 09:06 AM, Joel Jacobson wrote: >> For me, the most important is to not break *most* of existing plpgsql >> code, but it's OK to break *some*. >> And when breaking it, it should be trivial to rewrite it to become >> compatible. > > > I think the next step would be to list all the things you don't like with > current PL/pgSQL, and write down how you would want them to work if you were > starting with a clean slate. Let's see how wide the consensus is that the > new syntax/behavior is better than what we have now. We can then start > thinking how to best adapt them to the current PL/pgSQL syntax and codebase. > Maybe with pragmas, or new commands, or deprecating the old behavior; the > best approach depends on the details, and how widely desired the new > behavior is, so we need to see that first. > > I'd suggest collecting the ideas on a wiki page, and once you have some > concrete set of features and syntax there, start a new thread to discuss > them. Others will probably have other features they want, like the simpler > "DROP TABLE ?" thing.
Excellent idea, I'm on it! -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
