On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:08 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't think my experience in this area is as deep as you seem to > think. I can tell you that most of the requests EnterpriseDB gets for > PL/pgsql enhancements involve wanting it to be more like Oracle's > PL/SQL, which of course has very little overlap with the stuff that > you're interested in.
Do you know who could possibly be more experienced with companies who are heavy users of PL/pgSQL in the community?
and/or,
Do you know of any companies who officially are heavy users of PL/pgSQL?
The only other company I can think of is Zalado, but of course there are many more, I just wish I knew their names, because I want to compile a wish list with proposed changes from as many companies who are heavy users of PL/pgSQL as possible.
That's the only way to push this forward. As you say, we need a consensus and input from a broad range of heavy users, not just from people on this list with feelings and opinions who might not actually be heavy users themselves.
Of course almost everybody on this list uses PL/pgSQL from time to time or even daily, but it's a completely different thing to write an entire backend system in the language, it's first then when you start to become really excited of e.g. not having to type at least 30 characters of text every time you do an UPDATE/INSERT to be sure you modified exactly one row.
I afraid so you try to look on your use case as global/generic issue. The PL/SQL, ADA. PL/pgSQL are verbose languages, and too shortcuts does the languages dirty. In this point we have different opinion.
I proposed some enhanced PLpgSQL API with a possibility to create a extension that can enforce your requested behave. The implementation can not be hard, and it can coverage some special/individual requests well.