2016-03-11 22:08 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Joel Jacobson <j...@trustly.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I'm not direly opposed to most of what's on that page, > >> but I'm not excited about most of it, either. > > > > May I ask, what improvements of PL/pgSQL would you personally be most > > excited about, > > if you or someone else would have unlimited resources to hack on it? > > > >> I bet if we canvassed 10 different companies that made heavy use of > PL/pgsql they'd all have > >> a list of proposed changes like that, and I bet some of them would > >> conflict with each other, and I bet if we did all that stuff the > >> average PL/pgsql user's life would not be much better, but the manual > >> would be much longer. > > > > You as a professional PostgreSQL consultant obviously have a lot of more > > contact than me with other companies who make heavy use of PL/pgSQL. > > > > I'm assuming your bet on these proposed changes in conflict you talk > about > > are based on things you've picked up IRL from companies you've been > > working with. > > > > What would you say are the top most commonly proposed changes > > from companies that make heavy use of PL/pgSQL, and which of those are > > in conflict? > > I don't think my experience in this area is as deep as you seem to > think. I can tell you that most of the requests EnterpriseDB gets for > PL/pgsql enhancements involve wanting it to be more like Oracle's > PL/SQL, which of course has very little overlap with the stuff that > you're interested in. But I'm not really commenting here based on > that. I'm just giving you my impression based on the discussion I've > seen on the mailing list and my own personal feelings. If there is an > outcry for STRICT as you have proposed it, I'm not especially opposed > to that. I just think it needs a consensus that I haven't seen > emerge. >
This proposal is not bad from my perspective - but in detail these points breaks compatibility, can have negative performance impacts or are ugly. I understand to all points, but I am not sure, if the benefits are better than costs (compatibility issues). Can we talk about these points in separate thread? I can imagine few points as extra checks. This is probably theme for 9.6, so we can discuss about it in 9.6 release cycle. Regards Pavel > > -- > Robert Haas > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company >
