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.
