| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | andrew(at)supernews(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: plpgsql by default |
| Date: | 2006-04-11 04:47:03 |
| Message-ID: | 4009.1144730823@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> What does enabling plpgsql do via access that you can't just do from an
> SQL query?
SQL isn't Turing-complete --- plpgsql is. So if our would-be hacker has
a need to do some computation incidental to his hack, he can certainly
get it done in plpgsql, but not necessarily in plain SQL.
I don't feel a need to offer specific examples as requested by Andrew.
The point here is that we're offering a significantly more powerful
swiss army knife when we include plpgsql (or any other PL), and it's
hard to foresee the implications of that with any certainty.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2006-04-11 06:02:50 | Re: plpgsql by default |
| Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2006-04-11 04:14:18 | Re: plpgsql by default |