Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Oracle/PostgreSQL incompatibilities

From: Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, rainer(dot)klute(at)epost(dot)de,pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, klute(at)rainer-klute(dot)de
Subject: Re: Oracle/PostgreSQL incompatibilities
Date: 2003-10-04 03:26:36
Message-ID: 3F7E3DEC.4020100@paradise.net.nz (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
I think he means that you can do this in oracle :

CREATE TABLE test (id NUMBER);

Oracle treats NUMBER as NUMBER(40) I think.
This seems to be an example of Oracle making up standards as they go 
along - do we want to copy this sort of thing ?

I usually just run a substitution of NUMBER(..) -> NUMERIC(..) and 
NUMBER -> INTEGER when transporting schemas from Oracle to Pg.
(This needs a little care - as NUMBER in Oracle has bigger scale than 
INTEGER in Pg)

regards

Mark



>
>>>   + 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?
>>  
>>
>
> Ditto.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
>
>
>>             regards, tom lane
>>
>> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>>
>>               http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
>>  
>>
>


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Mike MascariDate: 2003-10-04 03:32:25
Subject: Re: Dreaming About Redesigning SQL
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2003-10-04 03:14:36
Subject: Re: updating INSTALL file

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group