Re: Recursive queries? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Josh Berkus
Subject Re: Recursive queries?
Date
Msg-id 200402041248.44222.josh@agliodbs.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Recursive queries?  (Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Neil,

> Granted, the primary goal should be implementing the SQL99 syntax, but
> providing syntax-level compatibility with Oracle's syntax (provided it
> isn't too difficult) seems like a good idea to me.

I don't agree.  There are lots of non-standard things which Oracle does (outer 
joins come to mind); supporting them just because Oracle does them would be 
giving our allegiance to Oracle instead of ANSI as the standard-setter for 
SQL.   I would happily support an Oracle compatibility parser as an *optional 
add-in* to PostgreSQL for people porting applications, but for the general 
user we should be promoting standard syntax wherever it is reasonable to do 
so.

Also, for all we know Oracle may have patented "connect by".  And for that 
matter, why just Oracle?   Why not MS SQL Server & Sybase?   Why not DB2?

Now, maybe there's an argumen that "CONNECT BY" supplies some sort of 
functionality that the SQL99 standard is missing, which would be persuasive; 
we have included sequences and LIMIT, after all.    But even then I would 
question the term; I've never found "CONNECT BY" to be particularly 
intuitive.  "RECURSIVE JOIN" would make far more sense.

-- 
-Josh BerkusAglio Database SolutionsSan Francisco



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Neil Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: Recursive queries?
Next
From: David Helgason
Date:
Subject: Re: implemented missing bitSetBit() and bitGetBit()