From: | "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "John Sidney-Woollett" <johnsw(at)wardbrook(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Best Procedural Language? |
Date: | 2006-08-04 13:29:50 |
Message-ID: | b42b73150608040629s33d6c0a6g61335796a15e4cec@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 8/3/06, John Sidney-Woollett <johnsw(at)wardbrook(dot)com> wrote:
> I'd say that the biggest benefit of pl/pgsql for postgres is that it is
> so close to Oracle's own procedural language. This makes the job of
> porting from Oracle to postgres *nearly* trivial.
while this is true, pl/pgsql has a lot of other advantages wrt other
sp languages:
* first class, non dynamic sql: cuts code, complexity and errors down
50% and increases security (or at least makes being secure easier)
* unified error system: perl brings perl errors, java brings java errors, etc
* cursors/refcursors: you can pass anonymous refcursors between
pl/pgsql functions directly. of course, this can be emulated in
dynamic plpgsql, but it is awkward and error prone. also, different
cursor mechanisms bring huge flexiblity in tight syntax.
* named parameters
* and most of all, pl/pgsql makes programming fun. ok, this is
entirely subjective and inconsequential, but it works for me. :-)
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Wayne Conrad | 2006-08-04 13:36:03 | Re: PITR Questions |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-08-04 12:59:51 | Re: Locale/encoding problem/question |