On 09/03/2014 11:48 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Anyway, to get back around to the topic of PL/SQL compatibility
> specifically, if you care about that issue, pick one thing that exists
> in PL/SQL but not in PL/pgsql and try to do something about it. Maybe
> it'll be something that EnterpiseDB has already done something about,
> in which case, if your patch gets committed, Advanced Server will lose
> a bit of distinction as compared with PostgreSQL. Or maybe it'll be
> something that EnterpriseDB hasn't done anything about, and then
> everybody comes out strictly ahead. What I think you shouldn't do
> (although you're free to ignore me) is continue thinking of Oracle
> compatibility as one monolithic thing, because it isn't, or to pursue
> of a course of trying to get the PostgreSQL community to slavishly
> follow Oracle, because I think you'll fail, and even if you succeed I
> don't think the results will actually be positive for PostgreSQL.
Well put Robert.
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
High Availability, Oracle Conversion, @cmdpromptinc
"If we send our children to Caesar for their education, we should not be surprised when they come back as
Romans."
