| From: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL 1.2 |
| Date: | 2014-09-06 16:19:18 |
| Message-ID: | 540B3406.8070905@joh.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-09-06 6:12 PM, Jan Wieck wrote:
> On 09/06/2014 04:21 AM, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
>
>> We wrap these things into (sometimes) simple-looking function so that
>> none of the application developers ever run any SQL. We define an
>> interface between the application and the database, and that interface
>> is implemented using PL/PgSQL functions. Sure, sometimes one function
>> will just fire off a single UPDATE .. RETURNING, or a SELECT, but that
>> doesn't matter. The trick is to be consistent everywhere.
>
> There is precisely your root problem. Instead of educating your
> application developers on how to properly use a relational database
> system, you try to make it foolproof.
Foolproofing is just one thing that's good about this solution. The
other one would be that the application *doesn't need to know* what's
going on behind the scenes. The app deals with a consistent API, and we
make that API happen with PL/PgSQL.
> Guess what, the second you made something foolproof, evolution will
> create a dumber fool. This is a race you cannot win.
You're completely missing the point.
.marko
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2014-09-06 16:31:05 | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |
| Previous Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2014-09-06 16:17:16 | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |