From: | Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Why mention to Oracle ? |
Date: | 2024-09-22 14:09:30 |
Message-ID: | CAB-JLwYBt3=5W6GhpPAsMB4ee6_KQ4DVQkGc2h-QRtZDGOFDeg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Em sáb., 21 de set. de 2024 às 18:42, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
escreveu:
> I suggest you explain what changes would make the docs better (meaing
> more useful).
>
Well, I think I already did this in this discussion.
Tom said that some functions were copied from Oracle, so it is ok to
mention them. I don't think so.
Tomas said that we can mention other vendors, even if others don't do the
same for us. I don't think so again.
But David answered that would be cool if we create a separate
page/wiki/tool which compares, translates or anything like that to other
databases.
So, if we have a "Compatibility/Translation/Feature Comparison/ ... with
other Databases", it would be so cool.
But we don't have this kind of page, so why do we need to mention just one
of them ?
Searching on SGML there are 0 mentions to SQL Server and MySQL, but there
are almost 50 mentions to Oracle.
So this is my point, if you don't do the same for others, why do it for
Oracle ?
And again, I'm not saying that migrations from Oracle are not important,
I'm saying migrations from Oracle have the same importance than from MySQL,
SQL Server, Mongo, ...
regards
Marcos
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-09-22 15:45:59 | Re: scalability bottlenecks with (many) partitions (and more) |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2024-09-22 13:54:11 | Re: Clock-skew management in logical replication |