Re: Ridicolus Postgresql review

On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Mitch Vincent wrote:

> I think PG is using the term as well as anyone could use such an
> ambiguous term.. I think it's fair to list the limitations of PG
> stored procedures when discussing feature sets but I don't think it's
> fair to say that PG doesn't have stored procedures as clearly it does!

Well, the author of the article was an idiot for many reasons. Mainly
because he talked about Mysql and Postgres most of the time without
differentiating between them, and sometimes mixing up facts between the
databases when he *did*. In which case, the article *did* mention that
perl, and other languages are available, but not to what database
(clearly) and not to what extent; while at the same time saying neither
database supports stored procedures.

I blame the author.

But as far as the comments on this list, the main differentiation
between stored procedures and functions (as commonly accepted in the
database world) was that stored procedures can return result sets and
can be associated in packages, functions do not have this distinction.

That said, postgres has functions, not stored procedures. Personally,
I wish postgres *did* have stored procedures... I like them far better.

--
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| Shaun M. Thomas INN Database Programmer |
| Phone: (309) 743-0812 Fax : (309) 743-0830 |
| Email: sthomas(at)townnews(dot)com AIM : trifthen |
| Web : hamster.lee.net |
| |
| "Most of our lives are about proving something, either to |
| ourselves or to someone else." |
| -- Anonymous |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+