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".
*If* a feature can be added to plpgsql, it sure can be added to
plpgsql2 too, so of course it should be added to both.
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.
