Re: Re: [PATCHES] Select parser at runtime - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Justin Clift |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Re: [PATCHES] Select parser at runtime |
Date | |
Msg-id | 3B77D556.8EC5DA4B@postgresql.org Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Re: [PATCHES] Select parser at runtime (Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com>) |
List | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Vince, The point I'll make is this : People who presently have installations on Oracle will be more inclined to test/trial PostgreSQL if they know the learning curve is much less than say, migrating to DB2 would be (or some other database without specific Oracle-transition compatibilities). Sure, they might move their installations to PostgreSQL-with-an-Oracle-like-parser and then never convert them to pure PostgreSQL. So? Does it matter? Probably not, they're still using PostgreSQL. I'm pretty sure over time newer projects and installations would become more PostgreSQL oriented as the DBA's gained more experience and understanding of PostgreSQL's strengths. i.e. "Chalk up a win." Vince Vielhaber wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Justin Clift wrote: > > > Hi guys, > > > > Not sure if Peter was joking, but Ian's approach sounds much more > > user-friendly. > > > > Getting Oracle users to convert to PostgreSQL then be "stuck-with-it" > > because they can't afford the migration elsewhere is not the right > > approach. > > If you think that people are going to flock to PostgreSQL from Oracle > simply because it's a drop in replacement, I want some of whatever it > is you're drinking! If PostgreSQL was truly a drop-in-replacement then cost and good reputation (especially over the coming years) would mean a lot of places would use us instead of Oracle. Presently though, we're not a drop-in-replacement. > An Oracle compatibility mode wouldn't be a bad idea, but at what cost > and at how much effort? What are you going to do with incompatible > reserved words? Who do you expect to do it? How soon? I've seen > alot of projects try to make themselves "user-friendly" only to suffer > in the end from what they lost in the effort. The cost and effort is purely voluntary. :) i.e. $0-ish cost, and heaps of effort. > Personally I'd prefer a PostgreSQL that was as SQL92 and beyond as it > could possibly be rather than some of this and some of that. I don't see how having alternate parsers available, maintained and updated by those interested in them, is a bad thing. Certainly don't see how it detracts from the main effort. ??? > Vince. > -- > ========================================================================== > Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com http://www.pop4.net > 56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking > Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com > Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com > ========================================================================== Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift -- "My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; there was less competition there." - Indira Gandhi
pgsql-hackers by date: