Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 11:10:24 -0500
To: Sean Davis <sdavis2@mail.nih.gov>
Cc: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pgperl vs dbd-perl
Message-ID: <20050809161024.GC1756@localhost.localdomain>
Mail-Followup-To: Sean Davis <sdavis2@mail.nih.gov>,
	pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
References: <20050809144539.GB1756@localhost.localdomain>
	<BF1E3CA5.C038%sdavis2@mail.nih.gov>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <BF1E3CA5.C038%sdavis2@mail.nih.gov>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
From: David <dbree@duo-county.com>

On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 10:57:41AM -0400, Sean Davis wrote:
> On 8/9/05 10:45 AM, "David" <dbree@duo-county.com> wrote:
> 
> > I'm wondering which of the two is considered the best.
 
> > However, in researching the mailing lists, etc, it seems that DBD:: is
> > getting the most attention - in fact, I see little mention of PgPerl,
> > and the PgPerl list seems rather quiet.

> > Is PgPerl still viable or is DBD the way to go?
> 
> DBD::Pg is the way to go, for numerous reasons.  DBI is very well supported.
> More importantly, almost all database-related work is done by building on
> DBI.  Interfacing your own code with those of others is then relatively
> straightforward.  See, for some examples, DBIx::RecordSet or Class::DBI.
> Finally, if you every need to port to another database product (GASP!), DBI
> is fairly easy to adapt (depending on DB-specific SQL).

Well, so far (and quite quickly) I've received two replies and both are
in agreement that DBD is the way to go.  and Dirk Jagdmann flatly stated
that PgPerl is outdated.

This was much as I'd suspected so I think I'll move over.

Thanks to both of you for the insight.