From: | "Ian Harding" <harding(dot)ian(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Christopher Browne" <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Best Procedural Language? |
Date: | 2006-08-02 03:14:23 |
Message-ID: | 725602300608012014v6337f4d0r90c4c8dc3c25884a@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 8/1/06, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> wrote:
> Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing when "Carlo Stonebanks" <cstonebanks(at)nissenfasteners(dot)com> wrote:
> > I am interested in finding out a "non-religious" answer to which
> > procedural language has the richest and most robust implementation
> > for Postgres. C is at the bottom of my list because of how much
> > damage runaway code can cause. I also would like a solution which is
> > platorm-independent; we develop on Windows but may deploy on Linux.
>
>
> - Doing funky string munging using the SQL functions available in
> pl/pgsql is likely to be painful;
>
> - 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.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2006-08-02 03:37:05 | Re: Best Procedural Language? |
Previous Message | Christopher Browne | 2006-08-02 02:39:38 | Re: Best Procedural Language? |