Re: LinuxTag wrapup

Bruce Momjian wrote:

>Gavin Sherry wrote:
>  
>
>>On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Andreas Pflug <pgadmin@pse-consulting.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