I haven't had any problems with it so far, although I haven't really
stressed it yet. I was going to make this very plea...
I agree that the syntax can probably be improved, but its familiar to
those of us unfortunate enough to have used (or still have to use)
Oracle. I imagine that bringing it more in line with any standard would
be what people would prefer.
On Feb 4, 2004, at 5:28 AM, Hans-Jürgen Schönig wrote:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>>> There is a website somewhere where a guy posts his patch he is
>>> maintaining that does it. I'll try to find it...
>> Found it. Check it out:
>> http://gppl.terminal.ru/index.eng.html
>> Patch is current for 7.4, Oracle syntax.
>> Chris
>
>
> I had a look at the patch.
> It is still in development but it seems to work nicely - at least I
> have been able to get the same results with Oracle.
>
> I will try it with a lot of data this afternoon so that we can compare
> Oracle vs. Pg performance. I expect horrible results ;).
>
> Does this patch have a serious chance to make it into Pg some day?
> I think Oracle's syntax is not perfect but is easy to handle and many
> people are used to it. In people's mind recursive queries = CONNECT BY
> and many people (like me) miss it sadly.
>
> If this patch has a serious chance I'd like to do some investigation
> and some real-world data testing.
>
> Regards,
>
> Hans
>
>
> --
> Cybertec Geschwinde u Schoenig
> Schoengrabern 134, A-2020 Hollabrunn, Austria
> Tel: +43/2952/30706 or +43/664/233 90 75
> www.cybertec.at, www.postgresql.at, kernel.cybertec.at
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
--------------------
Andrew Rawnsley
President
The Ravensfield Digital Resource Group, Ltd.
(740) 587-0114
www.ravensfield.com
