Re: proposal for 8.4: PL/pgSQL - statement CASE - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Joshua D. Drake
Subject Re: proposal for 8.4: PL/pgSQL - statement CASE
Date
Msg-id 20080117085443.6e5fe53d@commandprompt.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: proposal for 8.4: PL/pgSQL - statement CASE  ("Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: proposal for 8.4: PL/pgSQL - statement CASE
Re: proposal for 8.4: PL/pgSQL - statement CASE
List pgsql-hackers
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:43:45 +0100
"Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:

> we develop PostgreSQL, but why create own syntax for all? Why? Only so
> we develop PostgreSQL? We have different implementation and different
> limit, but why create different syntax, I don't understand. It's like
> Microsoft. Lot of things are little bit incompatible.

O.k. hold on guys. I really don't care what you do with plpgsql. I
don't use it unless I absolutely have to anyway. All I was doing was
saying that:

A. I could give flying donkey butt about being the Oracle-Compatible
community.

B. That "SWITCH" may be an alternate syntax because 15 years ago when I
took a CS class and I did one chapter of C they had a SWITCH statement
that resembles CASE.

Please continue on.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

- -- 
The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/ 
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564   24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
SELECT 'Training', 'Consulting' FROM vendor WHERE name = 'CMD'


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHj4hVATb/zqfZUUQRAhbpAJ9+qwBAHqxwSCCeVzbRjKBiFTpVhQCdEX+j
vrXiUgBeLQoBKx3s68214qw=
=kc7c
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: Re: OUTER JOIN performance regression remains in 8.3beta4
Next
From: "Pavel Stehule"
Date:
Subject: Re: proposal for 8.4: PL/pgSQL - statement CASE