On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > Okay, based on this, I'm pseudo-against ... I think, for reasons of
> > reducing headaches for ppl posting, there should be some sort of 'SET
> > oracle_quirks' operation that would allow for those with largish legacy
> > apps trying to migrate over to do so without having to check for "odd"
> > behaviours like this ...
> > Or maybe "SET set_rollbacks = oracle"? with default being #1 as discussed
> Yes, I understand. However, seeing that we have gone 6 years with this
> never being an issue, I think we should just shoot for #1 and keep open
> to the idea of having a compatibility mode, and the possibility that #1
> may not fit for all SET variables and we may have to do some special
> cases for those.
> My guess is that we should implement #1 and see what feedback we get in
IMHO, it hasn't been thought out well enough to be implemented yet ... the
options have been, but which to implement haven't ... right now, #1 is
proposing to implement something that goes against what *at least* one of
DBMS does ... so now you have programmers coming from that environment
expecting one thing to happen, when a totally different thing results ...
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2002-04-25 19:07:44|
|Subject: Re: non-standard escapes in string literals |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2002-04-25 18:54:18|
|Subject: Re: md5 passwords and pg_shadow |