Re: Ridicolus Postgresql review
От | Mitch Vincent |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Ridicolus Postgresql review |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 00a801c13aeb$f14d5ff0$1e51000a@mitch обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Ridicolus Postgresql review (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Ridicolus Postgresql review
|
Список | pgsql-general |
> That's not nonsense at all, you can't just go around and redefine the > language used in the database world at your own whims. "Stored Procedure".. Hmm, that seems to me that the definition of that would be "a procedure that's stored somewhere". When talking about stored procedures and databases I would assume that the stored procedure would be some database procedure (anything you can do with or in a database could be seen as a procedure, IMHO), that's stored in the said database... "Stored Procedure" is a very ambiguous term and probably needs to be treated as such.. Unless there is a written definition somewhere that outlines exactly how a stored procedure has to return things then I think PG's stored procedures have the right to carry the name... > Everybody I know employed in the database arena thinks of a stored procedure > as something that may return result sets. In PostgreSQL it cannot and > does therefore not fit the term stored procedure. What do they base that on though? The inability to return a record set from a PG stored procedure is a limitation, no doubt, but not cause to say that PG doesn't support stored procedures.. > What is confusing is the PostgreSQL use of the term "stored > procedure". To me it sounds like bad marketing, something we really > shouldn't need in the open source world. I think PG is using the term as well as anyone could use such an ambiguous term.. I think it's fair to list the limitations of PG stored procedures when discussing feature sets but I don't think it's fair to say that PG doesn't have stored procedures as clearly it does! -Mitch
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: