31.08.2014 22:11, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
> To secure it from examining by users, no?..
This is the last reason for such a move.
Dmitry
--
Slashdot TV.
Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
http://tv.slashdot.org
>> And it might not be feasible to rewrite PSQL code to UDRs, given
>> time and money constraints.
>
>Hey, PSQL words fine in may ways, is natively integrated - why should we
>even consider of moving the code to anything else?
Exactly, and with a set of (custom) external functions (UDFs), there's
31.08.2014 20:06, Thomas Beckmann wrote:
> why should we
> even consider of moving the code to anything else?
To secure it from examining by users, no?..
--
WBR, SD.
--
Slashdot TV.
Video for Nerds. Stuff that
> And it might not be feasible to rewrite PSQL code to UDRs, given
> time and money constraints.
Hey, PSQL words fine in may ways, is natively integrated - why should we
even consider of moving the code to anything else?
Greetings, Thomas
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Thomas Beckmann
Diplom-Info
>> UDR is about integration.
>
>> Anyone claiming UDR to be a replacement to PSQL or exposition
>> of code does not understand what UDR is.
>
>There is still a lot of room for moving complex code out of
>PSQL and into external procedures. There are many things for
>which PSQL is not an ideal choic
