On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 07:56:25PM -0700, David Wheeler wrote:
> On May 16, 2006, at 19:52, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> >Distant ancestors aren't particularly relevant here. What plpgsql
> >tries
> >to be is a ripoff^H^H^H^H^H^Hsincere flattery of Oracle's PL/SQL. If
> >modifying the loop variable is disallowed in PL/SQL, I'm all for
> >disallowing it in plpgsql, otherwise not.
>
> Even if PL/SQL disallows it, why would you not allow it in PL/pgSQL?
> So that it's easier to migrate from PostgreSQL to Oracle?
>
> If you only care about Oracle to PostgreSQL (and who wouldn't?), then
> it in fact seems desirable for PL/pgSQL to be a superset of PL/SQL.
Well, I'd argue that if we were serious about the migration case we'd
just add PL/SQL as a language. Presumably EnterpriseDB has done that,
and might be willing to donate that to the community.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
