Plpsql vs. SQL functions

Started by Bruce Momjianover 25 years ago3 messages
#1Bruce Momjian
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us

Is there a reason to keep SQL functions now that we have PL/PgSQL,
except for backward compatibility? What do SQL functions do that can
not be done in PLpgSQL? Are they faster?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
#2Alex Pilosov
alex@pilosoft.com
In reply to: Bruce Momjian (#1)
Re: Plpsql vs. SQL functions

On Tue, 23 May 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:

Is there a reason to keep SQL functions now that we have PL/PgSQL,
except for backward compatibility? What do SQL functions do that can
not be done in PLpgSQL? Are they faster?

SQL function can return a new tuple. To my knowledge, PLpgSQL cannot.
I hope someone can prove me wrong ;)

-alex

#3Bruce Momjian
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us
In reply to: Alex Pilosov (#2)
Re: Plpsql vs. SQL functions

On Tue, 23 May 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:

Is there a reason to keep SQL functions now that we have PL/PgSQL,
except for backward compatibility? What do SQL functions do that can
not be done in PLpgSQL? Are they faster?

SQL function can return a new tuple. To my knowledge, PLpgSQL cannot.
I hope someone can prove me wrong ;)

Maybe. I know SQL can return multiple tuples.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026