| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | harding(dot)ian(at)gmail(dot)com, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Best Procedural Language? |
| Date: | 2006-08-02 04:05:25 |
| Message-ID: | 44D02485.5070105@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>>> - 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.
and so does PL/R
;-)
Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Carlo Stonebanks | 2006-08-02 04:23:49 | plTcl - how to create proc/function libraries |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2006-08-02 04:01:55 | Re: Best Procedural Language? |