On 09/06/2014 12:17 PM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
OK, fine. But that's not what I suggested on the wiki page, and is also not what I'm arguing for here right now. What the message you referred to was about was the condescending attitude where we were told to "think in terms of sets" (paraphrased), without considering whether that's even possible to do *all the time*.
SQL is, by definition, a set oriented language. The name Procedural Language / pgSQL was supposed to suggest that this language adds some procedural elements to the PostgreSQL database. I never intended to create a 100% procedural language. It was from the very beginning, 16 years ago, intended to keep the set orientation when it comes to DML statements inside of functions.
That means that you will have to think in sets *all the time*. The empty set and a set with one element are still sets. No matter how hard you try to make them special, in my mind they are not.
Regards, Jan -- Jan Wieck Senior Software Engineer http://slony.info -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
