From: | Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
---|---|
To: | Paul Ganainm <paulsnewsgroups(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Postgresql Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Comparing databases |
Date: | 2003-11-23 19:18:28 |
Message-ID: | 1069615107.4494.10.camel@jester |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
> > A good example is our function language support. While most of the databases
> > above support some type of procedural language, do any of them support more
> > than 10 different types of procedural languages?
> Maybe this is a silly question, but do you really need more than 10?
> What's the matter with one that does a great job?
Aside from languages that excel at certain jobs (plR) it is useful to
provide what a shop already knows. Perl shops will prefer perl, PHP
shops will prefer php, etc.
> > Or do they have an
> > extensible enough codebase that can allow people to create their own
> > languages, like Joe Conway recently did with plR, or the folks at Command
> > Prompt have been doing with plPHP?
> I need this explained to me in a bit more detail - URL?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/interactive/sql-createlanguage.html
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/plhandler.html
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2003-11-23 19:56:33 | Re: Comparing databases |
Previous Message | Paul Ganainm | 2003-11-23 18:47:35 | Re: Comparing databases |