| From: | "Matt Miller" <pgsql(at)mattmillersf(dot)fastmail(dot)fm> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | "Euler Taveira de Oliveira" <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] Allowing SYSDATE to Work |
| Date: | 2006-11-18 17:42:03 |
| Message-ID: | 1163871723.24644.276390321@webmail.messagingengine.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
> > Why should we add this Oraclism to PostgreSQL? I doesn't add any new
> > feature.
>
> Certainly, this feature falls well within the class of completely
> gratuitous proprietary extensions that we typically reject.
I now agree completely. My purpose is to migrate Oracle databases to
Posgres, and I had thought that Oracle didn't support CURRENT_DATE,
CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, and so on. However, I've just learned otherwise. So,
I think the proper migration process for a production database would be
to first change the Oracle DB to use CURRENT_DATE (or some other
standard psuedo column), since that will work properly under both Oracle
and Postgres.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | J. Greg Davidson | 2006-11-18 21:07:15 | User-defined-type in C crashing PostgreSQL server: What am I doing wrong? |
| Previous Message | Matt Miller | 2006-11-18 15:41:29 | Re: [GENERAL] Allowing SYSDATE to Work |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Page | 2006-11-18 18:02:35 | Re: Proposal: syntax of operation with tsearch's configur |
| Previous Message | Markus Schiltknecht | 2006-11-18 17:28:15 | Re: Proposal: syntax of operation with tsearch'sconfiguration |