From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me> |
Cc: | Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Why mention to Oracle ? |
Date: | 2024-09-20 15:53:49 |
Message-ID: | 2440814.1726847629@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me> writes:
> On 9/20/24 14:36, Marcos Pegoraro wrote:
>> Why PostgreSQL DOCs needs to show or compare the Oracle way of doing
>> things ?
> I didn't dig into all the places you mention, but I'd bet those places
> reference Oracle simply because it was the most common DB people either
> migrated from or needed to support in their application next to PG, and
> thus were running into problems. The similarity of the interfaces and
> SQL dialects also likely played a role. It's less likely to run into
> subtle behavior differences e.g. SQL Server when you have to rewrite
> T-SQL stuff from scratch anyway.
As far as the mentions in "Data Type Formatting Functions" go, those
are there because those functions are not in the SQL standard; we
stole the API definitions for them from Oracle, lock stock and barrel.
(Except for the discrepancies that are called out by referencing what
Oracle does differently.) A number of the other references probably
have similar origins.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-09-20 16:09:51 | Re: Should rolpassword be toastable? |
Previous Message | Yugo Nagata | 2024-09-20 15:35:44 | pgbench: Improve result outputs related to failed transactinos |