Rodrigo E. De León Plicet wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:04 PM, Bob McConnell <rmcconne(at)lightlink(dot)com> wrote:
>> (...) we have a company policy forbidding stored procedures (...)
> Why would that be?
> Just curious...
There are a couple of reasons. First, even when written in SQL, stored
procedures are not all that portable. In addition to Postgres, our
systems use Oracle, Sybase ASA and Microsoft SQL Server. That's what
happens when you buy and absorb other companies. Fortunately, the
primary application I work with only supports Postgres. It is happily
processing tens of thousands of transactions each day.
Second, some of those servers are very slow when running stored
procedures and we don't have time to spend optimizing procedures for
each server. It's even more difficult for the Oracle servers which we
don't manage. We will only support that option when the client already
has a site license and full time DBA.
Now, there are a few instances where a case has been made and accepted
to use some specific stored procedures. But that choice is always made
on a case by case basis, with significant evaluation backing up the
decision. More requests have been turned down than accepted.
In response to
pgsql-php by date
|Next:||From: L~4dPd ·dSdf0D||Date: 2009-03-02 02:26:54|
|Subject: pkgtool-installpkg and the with-pgsql=/path doesnt exist in slackware|
|Previous:||From: Andrew McMillan||Date: 2009-02-19 10:21:28|
|Subject: Re: pl/php for windows|