Tom Lane wrote:
>Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>
>
>>Hans-Jürgen Schönig wrote:
>>
>>
>>>My compromise would be: Support both syntaxes if possible.
>>>
>>>
Great... code away. I would suggest a:
oracle_compat = true/false in the postgresql.conf
Yes I am kidding. The differences between Oracle and PostgreSQL
for most things is not that great. If the small syntatical
differences are the only thing holding them from using PostgreSQL
they were not that serious in the first place.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
>
>
>>I can see your point, but imagine if we had Oracle compatibility for
>>lots of cases --- our system would have either non-standard or duplicate
>>ways of doing things, and that would be quite confusing.
>>
>>
>
>Oracle has the resources to outtalk, outshout, and outlast everyone else
>on the SQL standards committee. Despite that, their syntax was not
>adopted as the standard. This should give you some clue about how badly
>their syntax sucks. Now why exactly should we adopt it?
>
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
> joining column's datatypes do not match
>
>
--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
