Re: [HACKERS] PL/pgSQL - for discussion

Mike wrote:
>
> David Gould wrote:
> >
> > I haven't read the PL/SQL proposal yet so please do not take this as
> > criticism of the proposal. It is just that I have sometimes wondered (having
> > used and maintained a couple of them) if there is a real need to invent
> > another procedural language inside a dbms. Who really needs yet another
> > language that only works in certain special circumstances?
>
> But Jan has already adopted an existing language interpreter (i.e. TCL).
> Now he speaks about server side programing using native SQL.

    For version 6.3 look into .../pgsql/src/pl/tcl.

>
> Actually existance of SQL server programming in SQL database seems to be
> quite expected feature. You may consider that most SQL developers
> doesn't really need other languages but SQL, so it's not inventing
> another language. It's just a wider, more flexible implementation of
> internal SQL.

    Even  if  "most  SQL  developers don't need (or know) another
    language" is reason enough for  an  SQL  based  PL,  my  main
    reason is another one.

    PL/Tcl  at least requires that the Tcl library got built on a
    system.  And I have tested only that it works with Tcl7.5 and
    Tcl8.0.   I  expect  that  the PL/perl implementation (I hope
    Brett McCormick is still working on that) will  need  a  perl
    library too.

    So  there  is  no  PL  implementation  up  to  now,  that  is
    independent from another software package. PL/pgSQL will  be!
    PL/pgSQL  will  be  the first language that can get installed
    and  enabled  by  default  and  then  be  available  in   all
    PostgreSQL installations.


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#======================================== jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) #