Re: Why are stored procedures looked on so negatively?

From: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Aaron Abreu <abreual(at)bay(dot)k12(dot)fl(dot)us>
Cc: Some Developer <someukdeveloper(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Why are stored procedures looked on so negatively?
Date: 2013-07-24 13:13:14
Message-ID: CAHyXU0wJqx5+mXTVtt7pTnz-F2w_e=fg5wQ4qaQ7GR2NXi70Fg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:52 AM, Aaron Abreu <abreual(at)bay(dot)k12(dot)fl(dot)us> wrote:
> a NON-technical version...
>
> st.procedures and automation are great...
>
> but...
> sounds like everybody is dancing around the main theme..
> so lets say it....
> that dreaded word that developers and DBA's cring to hear...
> the one part of our job that we all hate...
>
> DOCUMENTATION !!!!!

urk. your typical java programmer isn't any more likely to write
documentation and unit tests than your typical database developer.
sql is very at least somewhat self documenting; I'd rather trawl
through someone else's sql than just about any other language.

stored procedures also tend to be very robust, especially if you avoid
excessive use of variables and loops; they are tightly coupled with
the database transaction environment: errors roll back ALL DATA
STRUCTURES as well as the execution point to a known good place. also
the mvcc locking model is very clean vs your typical threaded drek.

merlin

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gauthier, Dave 2013-07-24 13:21:43 Re: Why are stored procedures looked on so negatively?
Previous Message Bèrto ëd Sèra 2013-07-24 13:10:40 Re: Why are stored procedures looked on so negatively?