| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jie Liang <jliang(at)ipinc(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff MacDonald <jeff(at)pgsql(dot)com>, Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pl/Perl |
| Date: | 2001-02-21 21:04:41 |
| Message-ID: | 12092.982789481@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Jie Liang <jliang(at)ipinc(dot)com> writes:
> My choice:
> if involving a lot of regular expressions, pl/Perl is better;
> if involving a lot of SQLs or other functions(or store procedures),
> then pl/pgsql is better.
Also consider pltcl, which has pretty nearly perl-equivalent regexp
support, and can do queries too. Besides which it's easier to build/
install than plperl.
It's a shame that plperl doesn't yet have support for making queries.
It hasn't really progressed much past the proof-of-concept stage IMHO,
but no one is working on it :-(
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ken Kline | 2001-02-21 21:51:00 | logging a psql script |
| Previous Message | Daniel Wickstrom | 2001-02-21 20:57:22 | Re: now() with microsecond granulity needed |