Thread

1. Ridicolus Postgresql review

   Andrea Aime <aaime@comune.modena.it> — 2001-09-11T12:49:04Z

   If you want to get angry, take a look at:
   
   http://www.iemagazine.com/010918/414feat3_1.shtml
   
   You will read a PostgreSQL review that has been made by a man
   that didn't even read the documentation (and surely didn't tried
   it...). I don't want to say that PostgreSQL is the best DB ever,
   but take a look at this:
   
   " Complex SQL, in the form of subqueries and correlated queries, 
     are largely unsupported" (????)
   " However, unlike most commercial databases, users do not have 
     the ability to create their own stored procedures" (what?)
   
   ... and so on... have fun.
   
   Best regards
   Andrea Aime
   
   

2. Re: Ridicolus Postgresql review

   Gunnar Rønning <gunnar@polygnosis.com> — 2001-09-11T13:11:44Z

   * "Andrea Aime" <aaime@comune.modena.it> wrote:
   |
   | If you want to get angry, take a look at:
   
   | " However, unlike most commercial databases, users do not have 
   |   the ability to create their own stored procedures" (what?)
   
   I can't find anything in the documentation in PostgreSQL on how to make 
   a stored procedure return a result set. AFAIK it cannot and then it is not
   really fair to claim that pgsql has stored procedures.
   
   Some other goodies from the article :
   
   "PostgreSQL provides support for queries and data manipulation
   statements that span multiple database instances." 
   
   "Both MySQL and PostgreSQL are multithreaded servers"
   
   
   But I agree, this author is a joke.
   
   -- 
   Gunnar Rønning - gunnar@polygnosis.com
   Senior Consultant, Polygnosis AS, http://www.polygnosis.com/
   
   

3. Re: Ridicolus Postgresql review

   Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> — 2001-09-11T15:05:06Z

   Gunnar Rønning writes:
   
   > I can't find anything in the documentation in PostgreSQL on how to make
   > a stored procedure return a result set. AFAIK it cannot and then it is not
   > really fair to claim that pgsql has stored procedures.
   
   There seems to be a rather narrow view of what a stored procedure is.  A
   procedure is just a sequence of statements collected under a name,
   possibly parametrized.  "Stored" simply means that it's stored in the
   server.  PostgreSQL supports both of these things just fine.  A whole
   'nother thing is the ability to return result sets from functions.
   
   OK, other vendors may call the latter for "stored procedures", but that is
   terminological nonsense.  And going out there writing an article claiming
   that in PostgreSQL "users do not have the ability to create their own
   stored procedures", without further qualification, is confusing at best.
   
   -- 
   Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net   http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter
   
   
   

4. Re: Ridicolus Postgresql review

   Gunnar Rønning <gunnar@polygnosis.com> — 2001-09-11T17:42:03Z

   * Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
   
   | server.  PostgreSQL supports both of these things just fine.  A whole
   | 'nother thing is the ability to return result sets from functions.
   | 
   | OK, other vendors may call the latter for "stored procedures", but that is
   | terminological nonsense.  And going out there writing an article claiming
   | that in PostgreSQL "users do not have the ability to create their own
   | stored procedures", without further qualification, is confusing at best.
   
   
   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. 
   
   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 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.
   
   -- 
   Gunnar Rønning - gunnar@polygnosis.com
   Senior Consultant, Polygnosis AS, http://www.polygnosis.com/
   
   

5. Re: Ridicolus Postgresql review

   Mitch Vincent <mvincent@cablespeed.com> — 2001-09-11T18:02:38Z

   > 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
   
   
   
   

6. Re: Ridicolus Postgresql review

   Alex Pilosov <alex@pilosoft.com> — 2001-09-11T18:45:16Z

   On 11 Sep 2001, Gunnar [iso-8859-1] Rnning wrote:
   
   > * Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
   > 
   > | server.  PostgreSQL supports both of these things just fine.  A whole
   > | 'nother thing is the ability to return result sets from functions.
   > | 
   > | OK, other vendors may call the latter for "stored procedures", but that is
   > | terminological nonsense.  And going out there writing an article claiming
   > | that in PostgreSQL "users do not have the ability to create their own
   > | stored procedures", without further qualification, is confusing at best.
   > 
   > 
   > 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. 
   > 
   > 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.
   Its a limitation, which is currently being worked on. Everywhere _I_ work,
   stored procedure is just that, a function stored inside the server that
   does some useful work.
   
   > 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.
   
   a) You CAN return result sets already (sort of) by returning a cursor,
   then doing 'fetch all from cursor'. Its not quite standard, but its
   possible.
   
   b) Soon enough you'll be able to do 'select * from func(args)', half of
   the code is already written and being committed.  Its a question whether I
   will be able to finish it and get it in 7.2, but at any case, soon this
   minor limitation will be removed.
   
   -ale
   
   
   

7. Re: Ridicolus Postgresql review

   Gunnar Rønning <gunnar@polygnosis.com> — 2001-09-11T18:56:56Z

   * Alex Pilosov <alex@pilosoft.com> wrote:
   |
   | b) Soon enough you'll be able to do 'select * from func(args)', half of
   | the code is already written and being committed.  Its a question whether I
   | will be able to finish it and get it in 7.2, but at any case, soon this
   | minor limitation will be removed.
   
   Cool ! I don't agree it is minor though, as I've encountered organizations
   using Oracle that has ditched PostgreSQL because of this particular 
   limitation.
   
   -- 
   Gunnar Rønning - gunnar@polygnosis.com
   Senior Consultant, Polygnosis AS, http://www.polygnosis.com/
   
   

8. Re: Ridicolus Postgresql review

   Shaun Thomas <sthomas@townnews.com> — 2001-09-11T19:54:08Z

   On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Mitch Vincent wrote:
   
   >     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!
   
   Well, the author of the article was an idiot for many reasons.  Mainly
   because he talked about Mysql and Postgres most of the time without
   differentiating between them, and sometimes mixing up facts between the
   databases when he *did*.  In which case, the article *did* mention that
   perl, and other languages are available, but not to what database
   (clearly) and not to what extent; while at the same time saying neither
   database supports stored procedures.
   
   I blame the author.
   
   But as far as the comments on this list, the main differentiation
   between stored procedures and functions (as commonly accepted in the
   database world) was that stored procedures can return result sets and
   can be associated in packages, functions do not have this distinction.
   
   That said, postgres has functions, not stored procedures.  Personally,
   I wish postgres *did* have stored procedures... I like them far better.
   
   -- 
   +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
   | Shaun M. Thomas                INN Database Programmer              |
   | Phone: (309) 743-0812          Fax  : (309) 743-0830                |
   | Email: sthomas@townnews.com    AIM  : trifthen                      |
   | Web  : hamster.lee.net                                              |
   |                                                                     |
   |     "Most of our lives are about proving something, either to       |
   |      ourselves or to someone else."                                 |
   |                                           -- Anonymous              |
   +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
   
   
   
   

9. Re: Ridicolus Postgresql review

   Mitch Vincent <mvincent@cablespeed.com> — 2001-09-11T20:00:58Z

   It seems that the argument is over what a "stored procedure" is.... So can
   anyone answer that with something to back it up? Opinions are great and all
   but I think something more substantial than the "just 'cause" reason is
   needed here :-)
   
   Thanks!
   
   -Mitch
   
   > I blame the author.
   >
   > But as far as the comments on this list, the main differentiation
   > between stored procedures and functions (as commonly accepted in the
   > database world) was that stored procedures can return result sets and
   > can be associated in packages, functions do not have this distinction.
   >
   > That said, postgres has functions, not stored procedures.  Personally,
   > I wish postgres *did* have stored procedures... I like them far better.
   >
   > --
   > +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
   > | Shaun M. Thomas                INN Database Programmer              |
   > | Phone: (309) 743-0812          Fax  : (309) 743-0830                |
   > | Email: sthomas@townnews.com    AIM  : trifthen                      |
   > | Web  : hamster.lee.net                                              |
   > |                                                                     |
   > |     "Most of our lives are about proving something, either to       |
   > |      ourselves or to someone else."                                 |
   > |                                           -- Anonymous              |
   > +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
   >
   >
   
   
   

10. Re: Ridicolus Postgresql review

    Andre Schnabel <a_schnabel@t-online.de> — 2001-09-11T20:48:36Z

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Mitch Vincent" <mvincent@cablespeed.com>
    Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Ridicolus Postgresql review
    
    
    > It seems that the argument is over what a "stored procedure" is.... So can
    > anyone answer that with something to back it up? Opinions are great and
    all
    > but I think something more substantial than the "just 'cause" reason is
    > needed here :-)
    >
    > Thanks!
    >
    > -Mitch
    >
    
    So .. I'll give it a try.
    
    I'll leave the discussion to you. (Because PostgreSQL does actually support,
    what I think, a stored procedure should be)
    
    This is, what Oracle says on stored procedures
    (in Oracle8i Application Developer's Guide - Fundamentals Release 8.1.5)
    ##################################################################
    Stored Program Units (Procedures, Functions, and Packages)
    A stored procedure, function, or package is a PL/SQL program unit that has
    the following features:
    
    - Has a name.
    - Can take parameters, and can return values.
    - Is stored in the data dictionary.
    - Can be called by many users.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ----
    Note:
    The term stored procedure is sometimes used generically to cover both stored
    procedures and stored functions. The only difference between procedures and
    functions is that functions always return a single value to the caller,
    while procedures do not return a value to the caller.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ----
    
    ##################################################################
    
    So a stored procedure in Oracle can return values. I can't see, if this
    implies, that a set of results can be returned.
    
    
    Here is, what IBM (DB2) says about stored procedures
    (from stored procedures information site ... found on www)
    
    ##################################################################
    First, in a nutshell, what is a stored procedure?
    
    A stored procedure is an application program that is executed by DB2 for
    OS/390 in response to a single SQL CALL statement.  It can contain SQL
    statements, as well as any application or business logic.  A stored
    procedure can be written in one of  many high level languages, such as C,
    C++, COBOL, PL/I, S/390 Assembler, and with recent maintenance,  in REXX,
    procedural SQL ,and soon in Java.    Support for invoking a stored procedure
    and processing its result sets  is built into many client applications, and
    also into  ODBC, JDBC and  SQLJ standards.
    
    ##################################################################
    
    IBM clearly claims, that a stored procedure (in DB2) can return result sets.
    
    
    Now let's have a look at MS SQL-Server
    (from the MS-Website, MSDN Home >  MSDN Library >  Microsoft SQL Server >
    Stored Procedures)
    ##################################################################
    
    Stored procedures in SQL Server are similar to procedures in other
    programming languages in that they can:
    
    - Accept input parameters and return multiple values in the form of output
    parameters to the calling procedure or batch.
    
    - Contain programming statements that perform operations in the database,
    including calling other procedures.
    
    - Return a status value to a calling procedure or batch to indicate success
    or failure (and the reason for failure).
    
    You can use the Transact-SQL EXECUTE statement to run a stored procedure.
    Stored procedures are different from functions in that they do not return
    values in place of their names and they cannot be used directly in an
    expression.
    ##################################################################
    
    From this definition I can't see, if a stored procedure can return a result
    set.
    
    
    And last (maybe least) the definition of stored procedures at
    webopedia.internet.com (I know .. I'll be flamed for posting that ;-):
    
    ##################################################################
    In database management systems (DBMSs), an operation that is stored with the
    database server. Typically, stored procedures are written in SQL. They're
    especially important for client-server database systems because storing the
    procedure on the server side means that it is available to all clients. And
    when the procedure is modified, all clients automatically get the new
    version.
    ##################################################################
    
    There is no word on returning values at all.
    
    
    

11. Re: Ridicolus Postgresql review

    Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org> — 2001-09-12T01:34:35Z

    Hey guys,
    
    Does anyone know anything about this SQL*Net compatible thing which we
    are supposed to be developing according to the article?
    
    I haven't heard anything about it.
    
    Also, it says we are planning full Unicode support for the future. 
    Don't we already have unicode support?  (not sure I'm not experienced
    with multi-byte encodings at present).
    
    Presently I'm writing an email to David Stodder, their Editorial
    Director, asking him to remove that article until they fix the
    inaccuracies.
    
    So far the mistakes I have are :
    
    - "Both MySQL and PostgreSQL are multithreaded servers..."
    
    PostgreSQL is NOT a multi-threaded server.  It is *no-where* claimed to
    be a multi-threaded server.
    
    
    - "PostgreSQL provides support for queries and data manipulation
    statements that span multiple database instances."
    
    PostgreSQL does NOT support queries and data manipulation statements
    spanning multiple database instances.  This is well known, and for the
    author to even somehow get the concept that PostgreSQL DOES do this,
    demonstrates his absolute LACK of even the most basic knowledge
    regarding PostgreSQL.
    
    
    - "...subqueries are at the top of that list along with support for
    hierarchical queries..."
    
    PostgreSQL fully supports subqueries and has done so for many releases.
    
    
    - "PostgreSQL plans to release a SQL*Net compatible service that will
    make a PostgreSQL database look to outside applications like an Oracle
    server."
    
    This is not the case.
    
    
    - "The upcoming release of the Red Hat Inc. database packages PostgreSQL
    7.1.2 with Red Hat Linux 7.1, integrated under a single installation
    mechanism."
    
    It's not upcoming.  It's been available for around a month now.
    
    
    Regards and best wishes,
    
    Justin Clift
    
    -- 
    "My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
    who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
    first group; there was less competition there."
         - Indira Gandhi
    
    

12. Re: Ridicolus Postgresql review

    Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> — 2001-09-12T14:29:53Z

    > Hey guys,
    > 
    > Does anyone know anything about this SQL*Net compatible thing which we
    > are supposed to be developing according to the article?
    > 
    > I haven't heard anything about it.
    
    It is on our TODO list.  That's as far as it has gone.
    
    > Also, it says we are planning full Unicode support for the future. 
    > Don't we already have unicode support?  (not sure I'm not experienced
    > with multi-byte encodings at present).
    
    Yes, have had it for many releases, but is a configure flag.
    
    -- 
      Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
      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
    
    

13. Re: Ridicolus Postgresql review

    Roderick A. Anderson <raanders@tincan.org> — 2001-09-12T14:36:15Z

    On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Justin Clift wrote:
    
    > Hey guys,
    > 
    > Does anyone know anything about this SQL*Net compatible thing which we
    > are supposed to be developing according to the article?
    
    Haven't read the article but from my Oracle days SQL*Net is the thingy
    that lets you connect to multiple instances/databases from one
    session(?).
       In fact if memory servers me correct it allows RI based on tables on
    a remote server.  There was a command that allowed you to create a
    database connection in the current 'instance' to other instances or
    remote databases.
    
    
    Cheers,
    Rod
    -- 
                             A small clue and no money
                             will get you further than
                             lots of money and no clue.
    
    
    

14. Re: Ridicolus Postgresql review

    Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org> — 2001-09-12T15:18:30Z

    Thanks Bruce,
    
    I'll check the Archives for more info about it then.  Prob should have
    done that before asking.
    
    :-)
    
    Regards and best wishes,
    
    Justin Clift
    
    
    Bruce Momjian wrote:
    > 
    > > Hey guys,
    > >
    > > Does anyone know anything about this SQL*Net compatible thing which we
    > > are supposed to be developing according to the article?
    > >
    > > I haven't heard anything about it.
    > 
    > It is on our TODO list.  That's as far as it has gone.
    > 
    > > Also, it says we are planning full Unicode support for the future.
    > > Don't we already have unicode support?  (not sure I'm not experienced
    > > with multi-byte encodings at present).
    > 
    > Yes, have had it for many releases, but is a configure flag.
    > 
    > --
    >   Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
    >   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
    
    -- 
    "My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
    who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
    first group; there was less competition there."
       - Indira Gandhi
    
    

15. Re: Ridicolus Postgresql review

    alessio@albourne.com — 2001-09-18T07:40:32Z

    Andrea Aime wrote:
    
    > If you want to get angry, take a look at:
    > http://www.iemagazine.com/010918/414feat3_1.shtml
    
    Seems that the article has been removed. I've sent a note to the editor,
    and he replied by asking if I wanted it published in the print edition,
    which I think will happen.
    
    -- 
    Alessio F. Bragadini		alessio@albourne.com
    APL Financial Services		http://village.albourne.com
    Nicosia, Cyprus		 	phone: +357-2-755750
    
    "It is more complicated than you think"
    		-- The Eighth Networking Truth from RFC 1925
    
    

16. Re: Ridicolus Postgresql review

    Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org> — 2001-09-18T11:54:30Z

    Hi all,
    
    This article was removed because it has so many inaccuracies (I asked
    their Editorial Director to remove it until they were fixed).  They
    asked me yesterday to provide them with some more feedback, and to prove
    that the things which are wrong, are wrong.
    
    I'll probably answer it sometime tomorrow (that would be in about 12-14
    hours time now).
    
    Regards and best wishes,
    
    Justin Clift
    
    
    Alessio Bragadini wrote:
    > 
    > Andrea Aime wrote:
    > 
    > > If you want to get angry, take a look at:
    > > http://www.iemagazine.com/010918/414feat3_1.shtml
    > 
    > Seems that the article has been removed. I've sent a note to the editor,
    > and he replied by asking if I wanted it published in the print edition,
    > which I think will happen.
    > 
    > --
    > Alessio F. Bragadini            alessio@albourne.com
    > APL Financial Services          http://village.albourne.com
    > Nicosia, Cyprus                 phone: +357-2-755750
    > 
    > "It is more complicated than you think"
    >                 -- The Eighth Networking Truth from RFC 1925
    > 
    > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
    > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
    >     (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)
    
    -- 
    "My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
    who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
    first group; there was less competition there."
         - Indira Gandhi