Re: Procedural Languages

From: Chris Travers <chris(dot)travers(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: John Townsend <jtownsend(at)advancedformulas(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Procedural Languages
Date: 2012-06-01 03:29:35
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-general

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:36 AM, John Townsend
<jtownsend(at)advancedformulas(dot)com> wrote:
> There are least 10 Procedural Languages available for PostGreSQL. The one
> that comes with the installation is PL/pgSQL.
> Which ones do you use and why?

Virtually all the time I use PL/PGSQL. The reason is that I think
that the primary purpose of a stored procedure language is to
encapsulate database functionality inside the database. Secondarily I
write functions in plain old SQL. With SQL becoming more
full-featured (CTE's etc) the use cases I have for PL/PGSQL are
actually shrinking. The major reasons I use PL/PGSQL as opposed to
SQL are actually shrinking. The major reasons I use it today are:

1) Exception handling and triggers
2) There are a few cases where logic is sufficiently complex that the
procedural extensions are really helpful.
3) Backwards-compatibility with older PostgreSQL versions (won't use
writeable CTE's for a while)
4) named input arguments, so if there are more than a few arguments,
I will use PL/PGSQL just because I think it leads to more readable

My view is that PL/PGSQL rocks. Code written in PL/PGSQL is clear,
readable, and database-friendly. While there may be niches for other
languages but for db stuff, it is my workhorse.

BTW, I second the point about listen/notify. I have some sample code
there I can share. It's not perfect by any means and would probably
cause annoyances if used as is in production but you can find it at

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Chris Travers 2012-06-01 03:52:43 Re: Procedural Languages
Previous Message Joshua Tolley 2012-06-01 01:30:47 Re: Procedural Languages