| From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Melvin Davidson <melvin6925(at)gmail(dot)com>, Yves Dorfsman <yves(at)zioup(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: plpgsql functions organisation |
| Date: | 2015-05-02 21:07:31 |
| Message-ID: | CAMkU=1xhm0JwfRGdg19JLPOwh52QDjKgCi1+RZMfeP9zz7oGrQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>
wrote:
> On 05/02/2015 10:12 AM, Melvin Davidson wrote:
>
>> AFAIK, you cannot "package" functions in PostgreSQL, but it is possible
>> to
>> call a function from within a function.
>>
>> That being said, I would seriously look at how and why you are writing
>> your functions
>> as functions that call other functions are not very efficient.
>>
>
> I am not following. That is what packaging is about, separating out 'units
> of work' so they can be combined as needed. Part of that is using existing
> functions in new functions/classes. In fact in the Postgres source I see
> this in many places. Now it is entirely possible I missed a memo, so I am
> open to a more detailed explanation of the inefficiencies involved.
>
The Postgres source is written in C, not in plpgsql. C has a good
optimizing compiler and plpgsql doesn't.
Cheers,
Jeff
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bill Moran | 2015-05-02 21:17:29 | Re: plpgsql functions organisation |
| Previous Message | Adrian Klaver | 2015-05-02 20:05:02 | Re: plpgsql functions organisation |