Merlin Moncure wrote: > 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 ;) And PL/Perl (and PL/php but it's still immature.) -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
