Re: [GENERAL] DROP [TEMP] TABLE syntax, as reason why not? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Francisco Olarte
Subject Re: [GENERAL] DROP [TEMP] TABLE syntax, as reason why not?
Date
Msg-id CA+bJJbxv0hqQsg+PO9BeTjuOK-nfXScaR_pPuFKf18WjnJ1Nqw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [GENERAL] DROP [TEMP] TABLE syntax, as reason why not?  (Vincenzo Romano <vincenzo.romano@notorand.it>)
Responses Re: [GENERAL] DROP [TEMP] TABLE syntax, as reason why not?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-general
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Vincenzo Romano
<vincenzo.romano@notorand.it> wrote:

> Isn't a CHOICE for better syntax enough?
> Aren't symmetry and consistency valuable arguments?
> Syntactic sugar is not evil on its own.
> It can help people writing code that can be better understood.

Valid arguments, but those extensions are NOT free to develop, test
and maintain. And every syntax extensions, specially one like this,
introduces the possibility of collisions with future standards ( de
facto or de iure, although Pg already deviates from ansi on the temp
stuff ).

Francisco Olarte.


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Francisco Olarte
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] DROP [TEMP] TABLE syntax, as reason why not?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] 'value too long' and before insert/update trigger