On 2014-09-01 16:29:18 +0200, Joel Jacobson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > On 2014-09-01 15:19:41 +0200, Joel Jacobson wrote:
> >> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > It bad signal to have two languages plpgsql and plpgsql2. Who will believe
> >> > to us so we will continue development of plpgsql?
> >>
> >> Depends on how you define "development".
> >> Bugfixes of plpgsql? Yes, of course.
> >> New features? No, but that's a non-issue since we all know it's more
> >> or less impossible to introduce new features without breaking
> >> compatibility, I think you will agree on that, no?
> >
> > Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. There've been plenty of new features
> > for plpgsql. You're not very convincing if you use bogus arguments like
> > this.
>
> You misunderstood, what I said was it's "more or less impossible",
> that's different from "impossible".
It's still bullshit. It's very hard to change *existing* semantics and
thus existing code. Which isn't something plpgsql specifically has
difficulties with. It's a far more general concern affecting pretty much
all released software; more so software with a large existing user
base. Remember all the flak postgres got for the cast issues with 8.3?
It's about has hard to add additional features, that don't break
existing code, to plpgsql as to most of the rest of postgres. Which
isn't to say it's easy. Believe me, I know that.
> I'm just saying it's much less probable you can add new features to
> plpgsql than to plpgsql2, as you have to take into account the risk of
> breaking compatibility.
That's just a difference of one release. The release after the set of
problems is nearly identical.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services
