On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 5:09 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What we need is more input on proposed changes from other companies
>> who are also heavy users of PL/pgSQL.
>>
>> Only then can we move forward. It's like Robert is saying, there is a
>> risk for bikeshedding here,
>> we must widen our perspectives and get better understanding for how
>> other heavy users are using PL/pgSQL.
>
>
> I disagree with this opinion - this is community sw, not commercial. We can
> do nothing if we don't find a agreement.
I disagree with your disagreement.
The users are what matters, and many of them are of course not on this
list (since this is a list for hackers), so we need to reach out to
the users, and those are companies/websites/nonprofits/governments.
So discussing proposed changes on this list will take us absolutely
nowhere, without further input from actual heavy users.
Once we do have input from the heavy users, then and only then can we
continue discussing things on this list, but before then it's kind of
pointless, because we don't know what the most commonly proposed
changes are, not you, not me. The risk of bikeshedding is just too
big, like Robert pointed out.
>> Pavel, do you know of any such companies?
> Probably the biggest company with pretty large code of PL/pgSQL was Skype,
> but I have not any info about current state.
True! I had almost forgotten about them after Microsoft acquired them.
Let's hope they are still on PostgreSQL. I'll check it out, thanks.
