Re: Oracle/PostgreSQL incompatibilities

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: rainer(dot)klute(at)epost(dot)de
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, klute(at)rainer-klute(dot)de
Subject: Re: Oracle/PostgreSQL incompatibilities
Date: 2003-10-03 15:53:05
Message-ID: 25846.1065196385@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

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