2016-03-11 22:32 GMT+01:00 Joel Jacobson <j...@trustly.com>: > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:08 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > 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. > > Do you know who could possibly be more experienced > with companies who are heavy users of PL/pgSQL in the community? > > and/or, > > Do you know of any companies who officially are heavy users of PL/pgSQL? > > The only other company I can think of is Zalado, but of course there > are many more, > I just wish I knew their names, because I want to compile a wish list with > proposed changes from as many companies who are heavy users of > PL/pgSQL as possible. > > That's the only way to push this forward. As you say, we need a > consensus and input > from a broad range of heavy users, not just from people on this list > with feelings > and opinions who might not actually be heavy users themselves. > > Of course almost everybody on this list uses PL/pgSQL from time to > time or even daily, > but it's a completely different thing to write an entire backend > system in the language, > it's first then when you start to become really excited of e.g. not > having to type > at least 30 characters of text every time you do an UPDATE/INSERT > to be sure you modified exactly one row. >
I afraid so you try to look on your use case as global/generic issue. The PL/SQL, ADA. PL/pgSQL are verbose languages, and too shortcuts does the languages dirty. In this point we have different opinion. I proposed some enhanced PLpgSQL API with a possibility to create a extension that can enforce your requested behave. The implementation can not be hard, and it can coverage some special/individual requests well. Regards Pavel
