Re: PL/pgSQL 1.2 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pavel Stehule
Subject Re: PL/pgSQL 1.2
Date
Msg-id CAFj8pRBr=RB_K6Uzr1Kzqtxy1Nx1JAsAS0Zj+raNFff_uobaVQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PL/pgSQL 1.2  (Jan Wieck <jan@wi3ck.info>)
List pgsql-hackers



2014-09-04 15:38 GMT+02:00 Jan Wieck <jan@wi3ck.info>:
On 09/04/2014 09:31 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
2014-09-04 15:24 GMT+02:00 Jan Wieck <jan@wi3ck.info

    I think I like the COMMAND CONSTRAINT the best so far.


I not, because when it will not be part of SQL, than parser in plpgsql
will be more complex. You have to inject SELECT, UPDATE, INSERT, DELETE

Making the COMMAND CONSTRAINT part of the core SQL parser was how I understood Hannu's idea. It would be horrible to tuck that feature away inside of a PL, rather than making it available to all PLs as well as applications, that use SQL directly (I think there still are two or three applications that do).

So I am happy so we have agreement, so implementation on PL level can be terrible.

Pavel

 



Regards,
Jan

--
Jan Wieck
Senior Software Engineer
http://slony.info

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jan Wieck
Date:
Subject: Re: PL/pgSQL 1.2
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: psql \watch versus \timing