On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Joel Jacobson <joel@trustly.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm not direly opposed to most of what's on that page,
>> but I'm not excited about most of it, either.
>
> May I ask, what improvements of PL/pgSQL would you personally be most
> excited about,
> if you or someone else would have unlimited resources to hack on it?
>
>> I bet if we canvassed 10 different companies that made heavy use of PL/pgsql they'd all have
>> a list of proposed changes like that, and I bet some of them would
>> conflict with each other, and I bet if we did all that stuff the
>> average PL/pgsql user's life would not be much better, but the manual
>> would be much longer.
>
> You as a professional PostgreSQL consultant obviously have a lot of more
> contact than me with other companies who make heavy use of PL/pgSQL.
>
> I'm assuming your bet on these proposed changes in conflict you talk about
> are based on things you've picked up IRL from companies you've been
> working with.
>
> What would you say are the top most commonly proposed changes
> from companies that make heavy use of PL/pgSQL, and which of those are
> in conflict?
I don't think my experience in this area is as deep as you seem to
think. I can tell you that most of the requests EnterpriseDB gets for
PL/pgsql enhancements involve wanting it to be more like Oracle's
PL/SQL, which of course has very little overlap with the stuff that
you're interested in. But I'm not really commenting here based on
that. I'm just giving you my impression based on the discussion I've
seen on the mailing list and my own personal feelings. If there is an
outcry for STRICT as you have proposed it, I'm not especially opposed
to that. I just think it needs a consensus that I haven't seen
emerge.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
