Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On 8/1/06, Ian Harding <harding.ian@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 8/1/06, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> wrote:
> >> Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing when "Carlo Stonebanks"
> ><cstonebanks@nissenfasteners.com> 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.
