| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | harding(dot)ian(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Cc: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Best Procedural Language? |
| Date: | 2006-08-02 04:01:55 |
| Message-ID: | 44D023B3.6050809@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
>> - Doing a lot of DB manipulation in pl/Perl or pl/Tcl or such
>> requires having an extra level of function manipulations that
>> won't be as natural as straight pl/pgsql.
>
> Another important distinguishing characteristic is whether it supports
> set returning functions. I think only plpgsql does right now.
Actually no. Plperl, plphp, plruby and I believe even pl/Tcl support set
returning functions.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
> choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
> match
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2006-08-02 04:05:25 | Re: Best Procedural Language? |
| Previous Message | Carlo Stonebanks | 2006-08-02 03:55:56 | Re: Best Procedural Language? |