"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> The fundamental problem I've got with this patch is that it adds 400K
>> of new code (and that's just the code, not counting documentation or
>> regression tests) that we'll have to maintain, to obtain a feature
>> that so far as I've heard there is precisely zero demand for.

> That is likely because everyone knew he was working on it.

By "everyone" I suppose you mean the dozen or three people who are
paying close attention to who's doing what in PG development. The
above argument is hogwash, really. If SQL/PSM support were so widely
desired as to justify a code addition of this size, then the archives
would be littered with requests for it. Try to find some. (As a
reasonable comparison point for what it takes to justify a large
code addition, compare that to the number of times that text search
requests show up --- most of them coming from people who don't know
who Oleg and Teodor are.)

I'm not against having SQL/PSM support. I'm just saying I'm not
willing to support two copies of plpgsql to do it.

regards, tom lane

--
Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches