Hacker News Reader

This has been tried, but thousand-line stored procedures are truly a nightmare.

was it due to the language expressiveness forcing too much verbosity ? (honest question)

lack of version control, clunky language mechanics, performance issues, etc.

Version control might not be a big deal if you are all-in on the database.

Stored procedures are easiest to version by simply defining multiple variants and then incrementally moving the callers in the direction you want. The durability comes from (hopefully) your backups. Point-in-time-recovery is often easier for the business to reason about than a git repository.

Having worked for a business that made a serious go of running everything out of stored procedures, I have to say that lack of version control was a huge problem and effectively limited all development to a single person who held all the rules in their head.

Can you not have a repo with conventional commits wired to do cicd for deployment?

This is essentially what we do. All of our stored procedures, views, etc are kept in *_api schemas. Those schemas just get fully dropped and reinstalled whenever we migrate. It works really well, and has basically zero cognitive load overhead for developers.

hmm lack of version may be tooled (reminds me of smalltalk, lisp file-less culture)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com