| From: | Bernd Helmle <bernd(at)oopsware(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Problem with recent PostgreSQL relatedpressrelease |
| Date: | 2007-07-16 15:52:33 |
| Message-ID: | 91F37F7890230483BA6BBE75@imhotep.credativ.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
--On Montag, Juli 16, 2007 08:22:43 -0400 "Jonah H. Harris"
<jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On 7/16/07, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>> How are necessarily incompatible features such as the empty string vs.
>> null handled?
>
> In some of the Oracle-specific compatibility functions, we work around
> stuff like NULL-concatenation. But PostgreSQL's method is maintained
> and the default.
But the real interesting parts are NULL-handling emulation which affects
unique index behavior (yes i know this is bad style, but i saw it quite
often) and/or NULL comparisons. What about OUTER JOIN syntax, PL/SQL? I
mean, that's what i'd expect from an oracle compatible database layer and i
was always under the impression that's what EDB wants to deliver.
(Don't get me wrong, i don't want to be rude, it's just out of curiousity)
--
Bernd
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Hammond | 2007-07-16 22:38:18 | Re: Problem with recent PostgreSQL relatedpressrelease |
| Previous Message | Federico | 2007-07-16 13:56:52 | Re: Thank you for PGDay |