Re: LinuxTag wrapup

Bruce Momjian wrote:

>Gavin Sherry wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>- what about Oracle portability.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>IMHO we should rethink if we could make those people happy. How about a
>>>>loadable personality (IIRC SAPDB has something like that), to exchange
>>>>the parser in use with a custom one (by a SET command)? This way we have
>>>>a pure ansi default, while enabling a way so someone could contribute an
>>>>oracle style parser.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>How about an external tool that helps in translating apps to
>>>SQL-standard syntax? Oracle does accept the standard syntax after all.
>>>That way we are truly helping people liberate themselves: they can
>>>switch to any SQL-compliant database, not only Postgres.
>>>
>>>
>>I totally agree. After all, oracle provides such tools to their customers.
>>
>>
>
>Should this be a TODO?
>
>
>

An external tool helping translating sql is fine, but nothing to be
defined todo for core pgsql IMHO. I still believe some minor "oracle
helper" behaviour (not to call it oracle compatibility, to avoid wrong
expectations) should be added. Currently, pgsql appears a bit arrogant
towards those oracle centric people (always a matter of point of view,
of course). We could avoid this by offering some concessions.

Regards,
Andreas