On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Jean-Michel POURE wrote:
>
> The purpose of my last mail was to propose the integration a libgda client
> into PostgreSQL. For example, it should be possible to attach an Oracle table
> into PostgreSQL, with the ability to run SELECTs, UPDATEs and maybe JOIN
> queries (???).
It would be inappropriate for PostgreSQL to be made an interface to other
RDBMSs. What would this achieve? Why would it be useful?
>
> This is pure computer-fiction, but MySQL might well provide such feature as
> well and query PostgreSQL objects...
If that's what they want to do...
> People were discussing lately about adding SQL compatibility layers in
> PostgreSQL (i.e Oracle compatibility). IMHO, this is not the right direction
> to go first because it would demand too much investment.
PostgreSQL does need greater support of SQL99 and some extensions to SQL
found in other proprietary systems, but this is not the right way to go
about doing it. It needs to support them natively so that it can replace
other systems, not work in conjunction with them.
> Just my 2 cents. My opinion is that the community should concentrate on real
> issues, starting with the most needed ones (ALTER TABLE ALTER COLUMN, CREATE
> OR REPLACE VIEW, CREATE OR REPLACE TRIGGER) and then work on GUI tools and
> abstraction layers to open PostgreSQL to the world.
I think you are off the mark here. The addition of trigger and rule/view
recompilation is a convenience at best and there are alternatives to
ALTER TABLE DROP COLUMN. Take a look at the TODO list: the most urgent
items relate to replication/clustering, point-in-time recovery and
row-reuse. All in all, it is these features which are much more desirably
to current and prospective users.
Gavin
