On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 02:48:43PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On mån, 2011-01-17 at 07:37 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > >> which, as Magnus points out, includes non-procedural languages
> > >> (SQL).
> > >>
> > >> I think that "list languages" could be confusing to newcomers
> > >> -- the very people who might be reading through the help output
> > >> of psql for the first time -- who might suppose that
> > >> "languages" has something to do with the character sets
> > >> supported by PostgreSQL, and might not even be aware that a
> > >> variety of procedural languages can be used inside the
> > >> database.
> > >
> > > Fair point.
> >
> > Yeah. Procedural langauges may strictly be wrong, but people
> > aren't likely to misunderstand it.
>
> The term "procedural" in this context originated with Oracle's
> PL/SQL, which is a procedural language extension to the
> non-procedural SQL language.
We can repurpose 'P' to mean, Programming or PostgreSQL, and have done :)
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
