[sivers]

Thanks! I do often get "YOU IDIOT!" type comments from people that did too many Oracle stored procedures in the 90s, and were burned by it.

But PostgreSQL is not Oracle and doing things this way has been working wonderfully for me for 9 years so far.

[whizzter]

I haven't had the "pleasure" to work with stored procedures,etc but from conversations the main takeaways seems to be:

1: cooperation, nowadays database instances are cheaper and with Docker we can spin them up but having them shared doesn't feel like a fun thing when developing (triggers more than stored procedures here)

2: version control, kinda ties to the above but being able to keep track of changes (and related then to code being out of sync even if that would matter less in a application-less world)

3: debugging in general ?

4: debuging "spooky effects at a distance" when triggers,etc run.

What's your take on these?

[qr1pt0]

> 2: version control, kinda ties to the above but being able to keep track of changes.

We dont use stored procedures at work, but all other database changes like tables, triggers etc. are committed to git and deployed using github actions. There's no need to run the sql manually

[ako]

Oracle has a nice way to bundle stores procedures in packages, which makes large amounts of stored procedures manageable. So still ahead of Postgres, but Postgres is definitely good enough.

[sirtaj]

Asking from ignorance - are schemas not enough to replicate this most of the way? What are the extra nice to haves that would bring PG on par with Oracle here?