Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Thread: Plpsql vs. SQL functions

Plpsql vs. SQL functions

From
Bruce Momjian
Date:
Is there a reason to keep SQL functions now that we have PL/PgSQL,
except for backward compatibility?  What do SQL functions do that can
not be done in PLpgSQL?  Are they faster?

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026

Re: Plpsql vs. SQL functions

From
Alex Pilosov
Date:
On Tue, 23 May 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Is there a reason to keep SQL functions now that we have PL/PgSQL,
> except for backward compatibility?  What do SQL functions do that can
> not be done in PLpgSQL?  Are they faster?

SQL function can return a new tuple. To my knowledge, PLpgSQL cannot.
I hope someone can prove me wrong ;)

-alex

Re: Plpsql vs. SQL functions

From
Bruce Momjian
Date:
> On Tue, 23 May 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> > Is there a reason to keep SQL functions now that we have PL/PgSQL,
> > except for backward compatibility?  What do SQL functions do that can
> > not be done in PLpgSQL?  Are they faster?
> 
> SQL function can return a new tuple. To my knowledge, PLpgSQL cannot.
> I hope someone can prove me wrong ;)

Maybe.  I know SQL can return multiple tuples.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026