From: | Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz> |
---|---|
To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, rainer(dot)klute(at)epost(dot)de, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, klute(at)rainer-klute(dot)de |
Subject: | Re: Oracle/PostgreSQL incompatibilities |
Date: | 2003-10-04 03:26:36 |
Message-ID: | 3F7E3DEC.4020100@paradise.net.nz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I think he means that you can do this in oracle :
CREATE TABLE test (id NUMBER);
Oracle treats NUMBER as NUMBER(40) I think.
This seems to be an example of Oracle making up standards as they go
along - do we want to copy this sort of thing ?
I usually just run a substitution of NUMBER(..) -> NUMERIC(..) and
NUMBER -> INTEGER when transporting schemas from Oracle to Pg.
(This needs a little care - as NUMBER in Oracle has bigger scale than
INTEGER in Pg)
regards
Mark
>
>>> + PostgreSQL does not support the NUMBER keyword without (...)
>>> i.e. something in parenthesis following it.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Don't follow this one either. We don't have NUMBER --- are you speaking
>> of NUMERIC? If so, I'm not aware of any context where you're required
>> to put a precision on NUMERIC. Again, may we see an example?
>>
>>
>
> Ditto.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
>
>
>> regards, tom lane
>>
>> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>>
>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
>>
>>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mike Mascari | 2003-10-04 03:32:25 | Re: Dreaming About Redesigning SQL |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-10-04 03:14:36 | Re: updating INSTALL file |