Rainer Klute <rainer(dot)klute(at)epost(dot)de> writes:
> [ some good comments, but a few things I want to respond to ]

>    + CREATE SCHEMA: Sometimes a schema created in PostgreSQL
>      disappears if there is nothing in it.

This is more than a bit hard to believe.  Can you give an example?

>    + CREATE SEQUENCE: Oracle allows (or requires) "INCREMENT BY"
>      instead of just "INCREMENT". Same for "START WITH" vs.
>      "START". Oracle allows explicit NOCYCLE and NOCACHE. It also
>      has a keyword ORDER.

It looks like much of this has been done as of 7.4.  I dunno what ORDER
is for though.

>    + PostgreSQL does not support the NUMBER keyword without (...)
>      i.e. something in parenthesis following it.

Don't follow this one either.  We don't have NUMBER --- are you speaking
of NUMERIC?  If so, I'm not aware of any context where you're required
to put a precision on NUMERIC.  Again, may we see an example?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

• Oracle/PostgreSQL incompatibilities at 2003-10-02 06:37:12 from Rainer Klute

Responses

• Re: Oracle/PostgreSQL incompatibilities at 2003-10-03 16:12:58 from Joshua D. Drake
• Re: Oracle/PostgreSQL incompatibilities at 2003-10-05 05:30:55 from Rainer Klute

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Joshua D. Drake	Date: 2003-10-03 16:12:58
	Subject: Re: Oracle/PostgreSQL incompatibilities
Previous:	From: Jean-Luc Lachance	Date: 2003-10-03 15:48:39
	Subject: Re: count(*) slow on large tables