Pg seems to be a more specific module, something specific tailored for Postgres
Sure, DBI is not "specifically tailored" for PostgreSQL, but DBD::PgPP is. The DBI simply specifies the interface; the DBD is where the rubber meets the road. The only thing that Pg could have is a more PostreSQL-friendly interface. Though it's been my experience that the interface enforced by DBI is quite flexible, and very nice. I've never had a problem using it with PostgreSQL.
As far as specific things that Pg does behind the scenes that PgPP does not, I don't know. As davidrw indicated, Pg is significantly older. It probably hasn't seen much maintenance, and likely doesn't have any significant advantages in terms of implementation, but if it does, it would be possible to move those bits into DBD::Pg and DBD::PgPP, where applicable.
So, my reply can be boiled down to: Pg might do some things better than DBD::PgPP, but there's no inherent reason that it should.
In reply to Re: DBI / DBD::PgPP vs. Pg
by revdiablo
in thread DBI / DBD::PgPP vs. Pg
by DaWolf
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |