On 6/26/2005 4:10 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> "Denis Lussier" <denis@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> > For various technical and backward compatibility reasons, I don't think
>> > SQL/PSM should be a replacement for PL/pgSQL. Although I do think it
>> > should heavily leverage the solid foundation afforded by the PL/pgSQL
>> > code base.
>>
>> "Solid"? I've wanted for quite some time to throw away plpgsql and
>> start over --- there are too many things that need rewritten in it,
>> starting with the parser. This project would be a great place to do
>> that.
>
> What is wrong on plpgsql code? I see some problems with processing SQL
> statements, with efectivity evaluation of expr, but parser is clean (in my
> opinion).
The whole parser is a hack that attempts to parse the procedural parts
of the function but preserving the SQL parts as query strings while
substituting variables with numbered parameters. That is anything but
clean. It was the only way I saw at the time of implementation to build
a parser that automatically supports future changes of the main Postgres
query language. But that doesn't mean that I like the implementation.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
