Well, the surprise for me is: this is exactly what I thought! I actually do have a lot of string manipulation to do, but I am the only one on the team with Tcl experience. For the sake of other developers I thought that the plPHP project would be interesting, but I don't get the impression that it is as well-developed as plTcl. Does anyone know anything about it? Also, does anyone know why the plTcl was taken outof the core distribution? Carlo ""Ian Harding"" <harding.ian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:725602300608012014v6337f4d0r90c4c8dc3c25884a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > 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. > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to > choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not > match >
