Can you give some examples of why you think this? I'm sincerely curious as someone who uses PLPSQL nearly every day and knows it is not perfect, but surprised to hear it is "awful".
I concur. Pl/pgsql isn't exactly elegant to be sure, but if you're already in a set-oriented mindset but need to add a sprinkling of imperative logic, it's well suited to the job.
no seriously, PL/pgsql is pretty horrible and obscure. But aside from subjective comments, there's very few algorithms available for it, approximately 0% of engineers know it and it's not taught in school, has little tooling compared with a first class programming language, you can't run pl/pgsql code outside of PostgreSQL, and (tell me when to stop)
PL/PGSQL is fine for "a bit more than a SELECT statement" and for very simple algorithms of <50 LOC. Anything more and please use a first class language like plrust, plv8, etc.
Rather than "Awful", I'd say it's showing its age.
The things I notice when working in PLPSQL:
* Ample boilerplate that needs to be correct when it could be inferred.
* Lack of a language server (doesn't help that PLPSQL is often embedded in strings in other files)
* Papercuts like procedures vs functions having different call syntaxes
* No/limited support for encapsulation
* No/limited package management
* Most new languages have syntactic sugar, like implicit returns / everything is an expression
ttfkam|2 years ago
asah|2 years ago
PL/PGSQL is fine for "a bit more than a SELECT statement" and for very simple algorithms of <50 LOC. Anything more and please use a first class language like plrust, plv8, etc.
danielheath|2 years ago
The things I notice when working in PLPSQL: