RE: why no stored procedures?

From: roypgsqlgen(at)xemaps(dot)com
To: "'pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: why no stored procedures?
Date: 2001-08-15 16:42:49
Message-ID: 013445F6BB17D4119959005004AAEA9A4E1EA6@SPIDERMAN
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Creating a C function to replace each stored proc is hardly a good solution.
Or is it? Unfortunately my C skills are rusty at best.

I'm glad to hear that the postgresql developers are attempting to add the
ability to return result sets. Does anyone have any idea how that is coming
along? Also are they planning on creating stored procs at all to return
more than one parameter?

Roy.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Conway [mailto:joseph(dot)conway(at)home(dot)com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 12:19 PM
> To: roypgsqlgen(at)xemaps(dot)com; Doug McNaught
> Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] why no stored procedures?
>
> PostgreSQL also supports compiled C functions. This feature
> has significant
> performance advantages over run-of-the-mill stored procedures.
>
> -- Joe
>
>

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Oliver Elphick 2001-08-15 16:55:16 Re: Bug#108739: Tablenames should be compiled longer (fwd)
Previous Message Tamara D. Blum 2001-08-15 16:40:57 Error installing postgresql 7.1.2