Re: Postgres for SQL Server users

From: Michel Pelletier <pelletier(dot)michel(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Adam Brusselback <adambrusselback(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Ravi Krishna <ravi_krishna(at)aol(dot)com>, Ron <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Postgres for SQL Server users
Date: 2019-05-06 22:52:15
Message-ID: CACxu=vJO+i4NJky3UoGwK75KZ1LF24O_nfiPzdWMHojpYouQuw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 2:49 PM Adam Brusselback <adambrusselback(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> I think the main "gotcha" when I moved from SQL Server to Postgres was I
> didn't even realize the amount of in-line t-sql I would use to just get
> stuff done for ad-hoc analysis. Postgres doesn't have a good way to emulate
> this. DO blocks cannot return resultsets, so short of creating a function
> and dropping it, it's not possible to get the same workflow.
>

Just ruminating here, and this has probably already been discussed in the
past, but I've always wanted something like a 'SELECT DO [LANGUAGE ...]
RETURNS rettype | TABLE (...) $$ RETURN [NEXT | QUERY] ... $$; but haven't
had any serious problem with creating/dropping functions like you mentioned.

-Michel

> The lack of GUI tooling was also a huge "whoa" moment for me, which I
> still grapple with.
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sathish Kumar 2019-05-07 01:22:44 Re: Import Database
Previous Message Thomas Kellerer 2019-05-06 22:44:06 Re: Postgres for SQL Server users