On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 12:18:31PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 12:10 PM, David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 11:58:20AM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 4:17 AM, Pierre C <lists@peufeu.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> My opinion is that PostgreSQL should accept any MySQL syntax
> >> >> and return warnings. I believe that we should access even
> >> >> innodb syntax and turn it immediately into PostgreSQL tables.
> >> >> This would allow people with no interest in SQL to migrate
> >> >> from MySQL to PostgreSQL without any harm.
> >> >
> >> > A solution would be a SQL proxy (a la pgpool) with query
> >> > rewriting.
> >>
> >> This sounds like a better idea...
> >
> > Aside from that little "halting problem" issue, it sounds
> > wonderful. You do know that SQL is Turing-complete, right?
>
> That seems largely irrelevant to the problem at hand. It's not
> impossible to do syntactic transformations from one Turing-complete
> langauge to another; if it were, there could be no such thing as a
> compiler.
MySQL's SQL isn't Turing complete.
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
