Re: Why mention to Oracle ?

From: Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br>
To: "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: 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: 2024-09-21 16:50:37
Message-ID: CAB-JLwa1R1dW-ktrxwskBR-0xQ0ujbhBe1hrCiAYv5KO+g=GpQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Em sex., 20 de set. de 2024 às 18:34, Jonah H. Harris <
jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> escreveu:

> Seems to me this has already been answered well multiple times by multiple
> people; I’m not sure why this is such an issue, or one that warrants
> continued discussion.
>

No, I do not want to continue a discussion about a closed issue, I just
want to improve DOCs, or get it cleaner, just that.

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-lock.html
PostgreSQL lock modes and the LOCK TABLE syntax are compatible with those
present in Oracle.

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-rollback-to.html
The SQL standard specifies that the key word SAVEPOINT is mandatory, but
PostgreSQL and Oracle allow it to be omitted.

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-select.html
Applications written for Oracle frequently use a workaround involving the
automatically generated rownum column, which is not available in
PostgreSQL, to implement the effects of these clauses.

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/plpgsql-cursors.html
FOR can be replaced by IS for Oracle compatibility.

So, except for Data Type Formatting, because Postgres mimics Oracle version,
and converting to PL/pgSQL, these other cases, and I don't know if other
exists, the DOC says something that is specific to a database, so users
which come from any other database could ask why not their database
compatibility is shown too. So I think all these cases could be removed.

Em sex., 20 de set. de 2024 às 18:34, Jonah H. Harris <
jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> escreveu:

> By your own admission, you wouldn’t see the value, where others who came
> from Oracle would. Additionally, your assumption is incorrect: many Oracle
> databases are migrated to Postgres, more-so today than when much of that
> was written.
>

I didn't say no more people are migrating from Oracle, I just say that
maybe migrations are now coming from other databases, like SQL Server,
MySQL, DB2, Firebird, Mongo and many others. So why do you document only
for those which come from Oracle ?
New Postgres users are today 90% coming from Oracle or 10%, I think we
cannot have this number exactly. And if nobody knows, why mention any of
them ?

Thanks for your time and I repeat, I just want to get Postgres DOCs better,
just that.

regards
Marcos

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Florents Tselai 2024-09-21 17:33:53 Docs pg_restore: Shouldn't there be a note about -n ?
Previous Message Nathan Bossart 2024-09-21 13:15:48 Re: pg_checksums: Reorder headers in alphabetical order