| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Plpsql vs. SQL functions |
| Date: | 2000-05-24 02:30:53 |
| Message-ID: | 200005240230.WAA09506@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> 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(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-05-24 04:24:40 | Re: setproctitle() |
| Previous Message | Alex Pilosov | 2000-05-24 02:25:02 | Re: Plpsql vs. SQL functions |