On Aug 5, 2009, at 4:55 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
>>> Josh's position that "this should be standard SQL" is nonsense, or
>>> at least he ought to be making that argument to the standards
>>> committee
>>> not us.
>
>> Huh? When did I say that?
>
> Sorry, I think I got one of your messages confused with one of
> Robert's.
> Anyway,
I don't remember saying that either. SQL I think would be good;
standard doesn't matter to me, never mind whether a relevant standard
exists.
(This is not to say that I think we should deviate wantonly from the
standard, only that I have no problem with extensions.)
>
>> *Built-in* functions are just as good as extra syntax, as far as I'm
>> concerned.
>
>> Functions which require installing plpgsql, reading the docs,
>> creating a
>> function, pasting it in, and saving it are NOT as good; they are
>> unlikely to ever be used, except by the people who didn't really need
>> them in the first place.
>
> Agreed, whatever we want to provide here should be available in a
> vanilla installation. This might argue for providing a C-code
> implementation instead of plpgsql, since I'm not sure we are yet
> ready to have plpgsql force-installed. But we can certainly design
> and prototype in plpgsql.
...Robert
