User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.4.030702.0
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 10:57:41 -0400
Subject: Re: pgperl vs dbd-perl
From: Sean Davis <sdavis2@mail.nih.gov>
To: David <dbree@duo-county.com>, <pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org>
Message-ID: <BF1E3CA5.C038%sdavis2@mail.nih.gov>
In-Reply-To: <20050809144539.GB1756@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

On 8/9/05 10:45 AM, "David" <dbree@duo-county.com> wrote:

> I'm wondering which of the two is considered the best.  I have both
> installed on my system and actually have done some work with PgPerl
> because it looked a bit less complicated, and at first, I thought that
> this might be a more postgres-specific interface.
> 
> 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.
> 
> In addition, it appears that DBD can do things that PgPerl can't.  For
> example, I haven't been able to find an escape-string function in
> PgPerl, which I'm now looking to implement.  Would one need to write his
> own escape-string for PgPerl?
> 
> 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).

Sean