On 8/1/06, Ian Harding <harding.ian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 8/1/06, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing when "Carlo Stonebanks" <cstonebanks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I am interested in finding out a "non-religious" answer to which > > procedural language has the richest and most robust implementation > > for Postgres. C is at the bottom of my list because of how much > > damage runaway code can cause. I also would like a solution which is > > platorm-independent; we develop on Windows but may deploy on Linux. > > > - Doing funky string munging using the SQL functions available in > pl/pgsql is likely to be painful; > > - Doing a lot of DB manipulation in pl/Perl or pl/Tcl or such > requires having an extra level of function manipulations that > won't be as natural as straight pl/pgsql. Another important distinguishing characteristic is whether it supports set returning functions. I think only plpgsql does right now.
and C, and SQL ;) in fact, sql functions make the best SRF because they are fast, basically as fast as a query, but also can be called like this: select sql_func(); --works! select plpgsql_func(); --bad select * from plpgsqlfunc(); works, but the other form is nice in some situations merlin
