Re: PL/pgSQL 2

2014-09-02 11:40 GMT+02:00 Álvaro Hernández Tortosa <aht(at)nosys(dot)es>:

>
> On 02/09/14 06:40, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>>
>>> If someone came up with a convincing PL/SQL compatibility layer then
>>> it'd be worth considering adopting - when it was ready. But of course,
>>> anyone who does the work for that is quite likely to want to sell it to
>>> cashed-up Oracle users looking to save a few hundred grand on per-CPU
>>> licensing.
>>>
>> As a case in point, EDB have spent quite a few man-years on their Oracle
>> compatibility layer; and it's still not a terribly exact match, according
>> to my colleagues who have looked at it. So that is a tarbaby I don't
>> personally care to touch ... even ignoring the fact that cutting off
>> EDB's air supply wouldn't be a good thing for the community to do.
>>
>> regards, tom lane
>>
>>
>>
> OK, so this compatibility layer is tough. Knew that already ;) But on
> the other side, the syntax is similar to plpgsql, right? So what about just
> having a compatible syntax? It would be the first step to that
> compatibility layer, which could -or could not- be a long-term goal for
> postgres (having the whole layer).
>
> I don't buy that having that would cut EDB's air supply. They're doing
> great, and they know how to take care of themselves, I'm sure ;) Besides
> that, "competition" is always positive, and I'm sure they'd be more
> benefited than harmed by postgres having that layer.
>
> If we are to have another plpgsql-like language (like plpgsql2) and we
> could design it so it would attract many many users (let's not forget that
> Oracle may have around two orders of magnitude more users than pg), that
> would benefit us all greatly. Even if not perfect. Even if it is a longer
> project which spans more than one release. But just having the syntax (or
> most of it, maybe avoiding some complex unimplemented postgres features, if
> that required a huge effort) is a big win.
>
> For 9.4, we have the media already saying "Postgres has NoSQL
> capabilities" (which is only partially true). For x.y we could have the
> media saying "Postgres adds Oracle compatibility" (which would be only
> partially true). But that brings a lot of users to postgres, and that helps
> us all.
>

Partial true can enforce so lot of people will hate postgres too. False
promises are wrong

>
> And also.... it could serve as a motivation point to implement those
> in-core missing features, too, that Oracle has.
>
> If on the other hand we resign from attracting Oracle users, in a
> moment where non-Oracle databases are fighting for them..... and we lose
> here.... well, let's at least have a very compelling, attractive, in-core,
> blessed, language. Even disliking it myself, PL/JavaScript would be my #1
> candidate there.
>
> My 4 (already) cents,
>
> Álvaro
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>