Hi Merlin,
> Stored procedure support is a pretty complicated feature. They differ
> with functions in two major areas:
>
> *) input/output syntax. this is what you are dealing with
> *) manual transaction management. stored procedures should allow you
> emit 'BEGIN/COMMIT' and do things like vacuum.
>
> IIRC, I don't think there was a consensus on the second point or if it
> was ok to implement the syntax issues without worrying about
> transactions.
I understand the situation, that a range of facets such as syntax, SP
i/o and the overall fit of SPs into the architecture of PG should be
considered. What do the Postgres gurus say about stored procedures?
My SQL experience is rather limited, but I've got the impression that
every RDBMS has got its own philosophy about matters relational and I
expect Posgresql to be no different. So probably an improvised hack
wouldn't be of much use here and things should be thought over.
Anyway, at this point I'm finished with my evaluation of Postgresql. The
MySQL solution which I've got now works reasonably well. It's just that
at this moment my investment into MySQL is still relatively small and I
wanted to check my options before I dig myself too deeply into MySQL to
make a potential sensible migration too expensive :)
Maybe I'm going to revisit Postgresql again in 2009 or 2010 :)
Vladimir
--
Vladimir Dzhuvinov * www.valan.net * PGP key ID AC9A5C6C