Dave Held wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:pgman@candle.pha.pa.us]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 8:43 AM
> > To: Thomas Hallgren
> > Cc: Tom Lane; rmm@sqlisor.com; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Oracle Style packages on postgres
> >
> > [...]
> > I suppose. I think we should focus on the use cases for Oracle
> > packages, rather than the specific functionality it provides.
> > What things do people need PostgreSQL to do that it already
> > doesn't do?
>
> Is that really the best way to go about things? Already RDBMSes
> are patchwork quilts of functionality. Is merely adding another
> patch the most elegant way to evolve the database? The problem is
> that Oracle et al are trying to be ORDBMSes and aren't exactly sure
> what the best way to go is. Instead of trying to formulate a
> rational plan for what an ORDBMS should even look like, they simply
> look at what would work with their existing infrastructure and tack
> on features. Then Postgres plays the copycat game. Instead of
> trying to play catch-up with Oracle, why not beat them at their own
> game?
I was unclear. I was suggesting exactly what you posted, that we look at
what functionality we _need_ from Oracle packages, rather than the
functionality of Oracle packages themselves. My assumption is that
Oracle does some things we need, and some things we don't, and does them
in some ways we will like, and others we will not, so let's look at the
actuall use cases that we need to address.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
