| From: | Pavel Stehule <stehule(at)kix(dot)fsv(dot)cvut(dot)cz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Denis Lussier <denis(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | jharris(at)tvi(dot)edu, <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Implementing SQL/PSM for PG 8.2 - debugger |
| Date: | 2005-06-28 22:53:15 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0506290036140.9650-100000@kix.fsv.cvut.cz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> There's going to be a painful period later this year when Mysqueel
is able to claim that their production db has more ansi compatability
than PG (at least for triggers and stored procs).
MySQL5 is really comparable with Pg8, but Firebird2 or SQLlite3 too. But
from my perspective procedural language isn't essentials. Possiblity run
perl or python prucedures is important. Today is first day of discussion
and there is half of year space for developing.
>
> It'll be very kewl having native PG with a fully ansi-iso compliant
stored procedure language with an efficient and clean implementation
with great performance charateristics and a debugger to boot...
>
Who not?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-06-28 23:30:53 | Re: Role syntax (or, SQL99 versus sanity) |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2005-06-28 22:33:56 | Re: Implementing SQL/PSM for PG 8.2 - debugger |