Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Personally, plpgSQL is only useful to those who are coming from Oracle.
People are more likely to be comfortable with plPython or plPerl than
plpgSQL.
Well that was not true for my, I started using postgres and plpgsql
not because I knew Oracle ( I don't know it ).
plpgsql
plpgsql is more close to postgres then plPython or plPerl, and after
all is nearest SQL then plPtyhton or plPerl so a DBA find it more
confortable then others languages.
DBA probably... programmer? Doubtful. The majority of people that I run
into that are using PostgreSQL are not DBA's. They are
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
plpgsql is more close to postgres then plPython or plPerl, and after
all is nearest SQL then plPtyhton or plPerl so a DBA find it more
confortable then others languages.
DBA probably... programmer? Doubtful. The majority of people that I run
into that are using
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim C. Nasby) writes:
I would still argue that if any language should be installed by
default it should be plpgsql and not java. As I mentioned, everyone
using a database already knows SQL; not nearly as many know java.
A vital factor is indeed that pl/pgsql does not require
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joshua D. Drake) would
write:
Personally, plpgSQL is only useful to those who are coming from
Oracle. People are more likely to be comfortable with plPython or
plPerl than plpgSQL.
I beg to differ.
In order to use pl/Python or
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Seriously - I'd like to raise my voice in favor of installing plpgsql
in template1 by default. I haven't heard any good reason not to (nor
even a bad reason).
It has to work with older dumps that will try to recreate pl/pgsql
themselves
Jon Jensen wrote:
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Seriously - I'd like to raise my voice in favor of installing plpgsql
in template1 by default. I haven't heard any good reason not to (nor
even a bad reason).
It has to work with older dumps that will try to recreate
Just a reflection from someone who has not been following PostgreSQL that
long...
I think you provide excellent leadership and keep a firm grip on the core
PostgreSQL server. Moving stuff out to Gborg and the discussion regarding
contrib tells me that you want to keep it that way. As I'm a firm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(5) Programming languages. We need to make a programming language standard
in PostgreSQL. plpgsql is good, but isn't someone working on a Java
language. That would be pretty slick.
IMHO SQL/PSM would be the obvious choice for the standard
procedural language. Not only
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Josh Berkus wrote:
I think that a talented manager could make the case for certain features.
So? So could any community member with a good grasp of database engineering
and an ability to write persuasive e-mails.
I'd like to inject here that I was the one who
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Jochem van Dieten wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(5) Programming languages. We need to make a programming language standard
in PostgreSQL. plpgsql is good, but isn't someone working on a Java
language. That would be pretty slick.
IMHO SQL/PSM would be the obvious
I'm a great fan of Java. Still, I firmly believe that pgsql should be the
language of choice as the one included by default. I think many users
consider the ability to write functions and triggers using SQL intermixed
with the DDL statements (create function etc.) as the only natural way of
doing
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:31:27PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 05:15:19PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(5) Programming languages. We need to make a programming language
standard
in PostgreSQL. plpgsql is good, but isn't someone working on a Java
language.
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
I would still argue that if any language should be installed by default
it should be plpgsql and not java. As I mentioned, everyone using a
database already knows SQL; not nearly as many know java.
I know both. :-).
Seriously - I'd like to raise my voice in favor of
I know both. :-).
Seriously - I'd like to raise my voice in favor of installing plpgsql in
template1 by default. I haven't heard any good reason not to (nor even a
bad reason).
If we install plPGSQL by default, we should install any other pl
language that was configured at runtime by
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Dunstan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 12:55 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Usability, MySQL, Postgresql.org,
gborg, contrib,
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
I would still argue that if any language should
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:32:44PM -0700, Dann Corbit wrote:
From: Andrew Dunstan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Seriously - I'd like to raise my voice in favor of installing
plpgsql in template1 by default. I haven't heard any good reason not
to (nor even a bad reason).
I offered the
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 01:14:08PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
If we install plPGSQL by default, we should install any other pl
language that was configured at runtime by default as well. This
includes plPerl, plTCL, and plPython.
That certainly makes sense.
Of course only if they were
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
If we install plPGSQL by default, we should install any other pl
language that was configured at runtime by default as well. This
includes plPerl, plTCL, and plPython.
Of course only if they were compiled in, but sense they are a part of
the core distribution we
If anything, I'd rather see the JDBC and ODBC drivers reinstated in the
release. More than 56% of the PostgreSQL users (according to the poll) uses
JDBC today. ODBC is merely 18% but that might change significantly when the
native Win32 port is released. I might have missed something altogether
Seriously - I'd like to raise my voice in favor of installing
plpgsql in
template1 by default. I haven't heard any good reason not to
(nor even a
bad reason).
It has to work with older dumps that will try to recreate pl/pgsql
themselves explicitly.
I offered the same opinion a while back,
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I know both. :-).
Seriously - I'd like to raise my voice in favor of installing plpgsql
in template1 by default. I haven't heard any good reason not to (nor
even a bad reason).
If we install plPGSQL by default, we should install any other pl
language that was configured
- PL/Java is well and interesting, but requires a barrel of non-free
software, which makes installation and configuration anything but
slick.
I think it's a bit unfair to say that Pl/Java requires a barrel of non-free
software.
Pl/Java doesn't require any software besides the Java
Christopher Browne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In an attempt to throw the authorities off his trail, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
transmitted:
Is anyone really ready for this sort of commitment?
By that, I presume you mean...
Are people prepared to stop working on the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PostgreSQL. Maybe it is in the form of a web server like Samba's SWAT
utility, I don't know (A SWAT type utility could run as the PostgreSQL
I've found webmin to be pretty good swat type tool...it's lacking some
things to be a full postgres administration system, but I
In an attempt to throw the authorities off his trail, [EMAIL PROTECTED] transmitted:
Is anyone really ready for this sort of commitment?
By that, I presume you mean...
Are people prepared to stop working on the doubtless useful things
that they are working on in favor of spending their time
On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 05:15:19PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(5) Programming languages. We need to make a programming language
standard
in PostgreSQL. plpgsql is good, but isn't someone working on a Java
language. That would be pretty slick.
If there's going to be a single standard
When all is said and done, I think the PostgreSQL project lacks a
Product
Management group which steers the public perception and defines
usability. This is something *all* other systems have, including MySQL.
Well, NO, not a chance.
As one of the de-facto heads of our Advocacy group, let
In an attempt to throw the authorities off his trail, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
transmitted:
Is anyone really ready for this sort of commitment?
By that, I presume you mean...
Are people prepared to stop working on the doubtless useful things
that they are working on in favor of spending their
On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 05:15:19PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(5) Programming languages. We need to make a programming language standard
in PostgreSQL. plpgsql is good, but isn't someone working on a Java
language. That would be pretty slick.
If there's going to be a single standard
When all is said and done, I think the PostgreSQL project lacks a Product
Management group which steers the public perception and defines
usability. This is something *all* other systems have, including MySQL.
Well, NO, not a chance.
As one of the de-facto heads of our Advocacy group, let
Hi, Mark,
Yes, I've seen your e-mails around. You should use a sig, though, they're
easy to create.
I think I am talking about something different. In a company, the core
team would be the CTO. I think some entity, one or more people, needs to
define the product. Typically this is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we want to make PostgreSQL a wildly popular product, there will be
some pain. There should be a Product Management group. The
leader(s) of this group should be chosen carefully, as he (they) must
be free to define what PostgreSQL is. They must have a good feel for
Hey,
First of all, who is this? I don't recognize the e-mail, and you haven't
been signing any of your posts.
I've been posting on hackers on and off for a few years. My name is Mark.
true, others, however, are very welcoming to direction.
AFAIK, this includes none of our major code
Hey,
First of all, who is this? I don't recognize the e-mail, and you haven't
been signing any of your posts.
true, others, however, are very welcoming to direction.
AFAIK, this includes none of our major code contributors. So all you're
really talking about is manipulating the TODO
35 matches
Mail list logo
