Re: [HACKERS] merging some features from plpgsql2 project - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Joel Jacobson |
---|---|
Subject | Re: [HACKERS] merging some features from plpgsql2 project |
Date | |
Msg-id | CAASwCXemfv7vvsvbAAaS6LTi=-=bkPSXNpMg2Dov5ftsGX_dTQ@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: [HACKERS] merging some features from plpgsql2 project (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>) |
Responses |
Re: [HACKERS] merging some features from plpgsql2 project
Re: [HACKERS] merging some features from plpgsql2 project |
List | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 8:56 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote: > > Jim, Marko, Joel - is there a place, features where we can find a partial agreement? If it is, then we can move our viewthere. I have decided I definitively want a new language, and I'm willing to pay for it. Hopefully the community will join forces and contribute with ideas and code, but with or without you or the rest of the community, plpgsql2 is going to happen. Call it pltrustly or plpgsql2, I don't care. I just care about ending my suffering from being forced writing plpgsql every day. It sucks, and I'm going to end it. I'm just too fed up with the annoyances of plpgsql. I cannot care less about _hypothetical_ incompatibility problems, I think your arguments "this is like Perl6 or Python3" are delusional. You can easily intermix plpgsql and plpgsql2 in the same "application", something you cannot do with Perl6 or Python3. So please stop using that as an argument. If anyone has an application where the hypothetical incompatibility problems would be a problem, then just continue to use plpgsql. And please kill all these GUCs ideas. The best thing with PostgreSQL is the natural expected behaviour of the default configuration. Contrary to MySQL where you have to enable lots and lots of configuration options just to get a behaviour you expect as a novice user. It's much better to just come together and agree on whatever we have learned during the last 15 years of PL/pgSQL1, and sample all ideas during a year maybe, and decide what to put into PL/pgSQL2. To make it useful, we should aim to not break compatibility for _most_ code, but accept some necessary rewrites of functions with deprecated anti-patterns. I'm even willing to suggest it might be a good idea to first try out PL/pgSQL2 at Trustly, and after a year of usage, report back to the community of our findings on how well it worked out for us, to allow all others to learn from our mistakes during our first year of using the new language. That way less people and companies will have to suffer when we discover what we got wrong in what we thought would work out well for us. During the same trial period maybe your company Pavel and others can try out their ideas of a PL/pgSQL2 and implement it, see how it works out for you, and then report back to the community on your findings from production environments. That way we can avoid all these hypothetical discussions on what will be good or bad without having any empirical evidence at hand.
pgsql-hackers by date: