Re: [HACKERS] PL/pgSQL - for discussion

From: dg(at)illustra(dot)com (David Gould)
To: jwieck(at)debis(dot)com
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PL/pgSQL - for discussion
Date: 1998-03-12 21:31:33
Message-ID: 9803122131.AA28289@hawk.illustra.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


I haven't read the PL/SQL proposal yet so please do not take this as
criticism of the proposal. It is just that I have sometimes wondered (having
used and maintained a couple of them) if there is a real need to invent
another procedural language inside a dbms. Who really needs yet another
language that only works in certain special circumstances? Why not just
adapt an existing language implementation and graft SQL integration into
it? For example in Perl:

sub find_prospects_to_contact ()
# note that sql select looks like a file handle/split() combo to perl
while (<select ($name, $phone) from prospects p,
where prospect.interests ~= /computer/ or /electronics/;
>) {
# some stuff to be done per row
...
if ($should_contact) {
insert into contacts_todo values ($name, $phone);
}
}

Of course there are probably a zillion great reasons why this would be hard
or the wrong thing to do, but still...

Wouldn't it be cool?

-dg

David Gould dg(at)illustra(dot)com 510.628.3783 or 510.305.9468
Informix Software (No, really) 300 Lakeside Drive Oakland, CA 94612
- I realize now that irony has no place in business communications.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michal Mosiewicz 1998-03-12 21:54:20 Re: [HACKERS] PL/pgSQL - for discussion
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 1998-03-12 21:15:54 Re: SCO vs. the monster macro