Re: Extended customizing, SQL functions, - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | pgsql@mohawksoft.com |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Extended customizing, SQL functions, |
Date | |
Msg-id | 16724.24.91.171.78.1085834419.squirrel@mail.mohawksoft.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Extended customizing, SQL functions, (Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar@frodo.hserus.net>) |
Responses |
Re: Extended customizing, SQL functions,
Re: Extended customizing, SQL functions, |
List | pgsql-hackers |
> On Saturday 29 May 2004 04:38, pgsql@mohawksoft.com wrote: >> Now, I could roll my own system pretty easily, and probably will do so. >> It >> won't take too much, however, it would be neat if this was in >> PostgreSQL. >> >> I fully expect that people would worry about this, and I don't blame >> them. >> It is a *bad* idea. Like I said, I could roll my own, but I'm curious if >> anyone else sees any benefit to this feature. If it is a feature that >> people want, it would best be done from within PostgreSQL. If it is not >> something generally wanted, then I'll keep it here or try to get it on >> gborg or pgfoundary. > > I agree that it could be a nice feature. But it reminds me a quote from a > C++ > FAQ I read once. > > ---------- > *. Should I use exception for error handling? > > Ans. The real question is can I afford stack unwinding here... > ---------- > > The situation is similar here. When you want something in database, one > question is to ask is do I need MVCC here? I am a HUGE C/C++ guy. A lot of people dump on C++ because it lets you shoot yourself in the foot with both barrels without even knowing how ... if you are not careful. Oddly enough, this very flexability is what makes it a very powerful and useful language. Similarly, sometimes, it is very difficult to make PostgreSQL do some of the things that you need too. > > Of course depending upon the application context the answer well could be > yes. > But at a lot of places, this could be easily be managed in application and > probably better be done so. > > Personally I do not think managing such information in application is an > hack. > > Just a thought... I may have a unique view of PostgreSQL, but I don't think of it as just a database. I think of it as a great applications platform. Most applications today are data centric, and postgresql fits this bill perfectly. As a data layer it is hard to beat. The fact that it is a great SQL database in its own right, is a huge bonus. That being said, every now and then it lacks this small little feature that working around takes a bit of work. Like functions returning multiple results, that was huge. Functions returning rows, that was huge too. Having internal PostgreSQL variables that are not present on disk, or maybe, variables that are mirrored on disk may be good. The whole reason why I made this post was to see if other people have had similar issues and looked for a similar solution, and to think about if there is a solution that fits within PostgreSQL and how it would work.
pgsql-hackers by date: