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
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 |