Re: PL/pgSQL 2

On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 12:40:14AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > If someone came up with a convincing PL/SQL compatibility layer then
> > it'd be worth considering adopting - when it was ready. But of course,
> > anyone who does the work for that is quite likely to want to sell it to
> > cashed-up Oracle users looking to save a few hundred grand on per-CPU
> > licensing.
>
> As a case in point, EDB have spent quite a few man-years on their Oracle
> compatibility layer; and it's still not a terribly exact match, according
> to my colleagues who have looked at it. So that is a tarbaby I don't
> personally care to touch ... even ignoring the fact that cutting off
> EDB's air supply wouldn't be a good thing for the community to do.

FYI, the docs of what EDB has done are online:

Server:
http://www.enterprisedb.com/docs/en/9.3/eeguide/Table%2520of%2520Contents.htm

Server packages, e.g. DBMS_:
http://www.enterprisedb.com/docs/en/9.3/eeguide/Postgres_Plus_Enterprise_Edition_Guide-52.htm#P14240_790554

Oracle Compatibility Guide:
http://www.enterprisedb.com/docs/en/9.3/oracompat/Table%2520of%2520Contents.htm

PL/SQL, called Stored Procedure Language:
http://www.enterprisedb.com/docs/en/9.3/oracompat/Postgres_Plus_Advanced_Server_Oracle_Compatibility_Guide-78.htm#P6933_375311

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ Everyone has their own god. +