Re: Re: [PATCHES] Select parser at runtime

From: Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org>
To: Vince Vielhaber <vev(at)michvhf(dot)com>
Cc: Ian Lance Taylor <ian(at)airs(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCHES] Select parser at runtime
Date: 2001-08-13 13:25:42
Message-ID: 3B77D556.8EC5DA4B@postgresql.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Hi Vince,

The point I'll make is this :

People who presently have installations on Oracle will be more inclined
to test/trial PostgreSQL if they know the learning curve is much less
than say, migrating to DB2 would be (or some other database without
specific Oracle-transition compatibilities).

Sure, they might move their installations to
PostgreSQL-with-an-Oracle-like-parser and then never convert them to
pure PostgreSQL. So? Does it matter? Probably not, they're still
using PostgreSQL. I'm pretty sure over time newer projects and
installations would become more PostgreSQL oriented as the DBA's gained
more experience and understanding of PostgreSQL's strengths. i.e.
"Chalk up a win."

Vince Vielhaber wrote:
>
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Justin Clift wrote:
>
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > Not sure if Peter was joking, but Ian's approach sounds much more
> > user-friendly.
> >
> > Getting Oracle users to convert to PostgreSQL then be "stuck-with-it"
> > because they can't afford the migration elsewhere is not the right
> > approach.
>
> If you think that people are going to flock to PostgreSQL from Oracle
> simply because it's a drop in replacement, I want some of whatever it
> is you're drinking!

If PostgreSQL was truly a drop-in-replacement then cost and good
reputation (especially over the coming years) would mean a lot of places
would use us instead of Oracle. Presently though, we're not a
drop-in-replacement.

> An Oracle compatibility mode wouldn't be a bad idea, but at what cost
> and at how much effort? What are you going to do with incompatible
> reserved words? Who do you expect to do it? How soon? I've seen
> alot of projects try to make themselves "user-friendly" only to suffer
> in the end from what they lost in the effort.

The cost and effort is purely voluntary. :) i.e. $0-ish cost, and
heaps of effort.

> Personally I'd prefer a PostgreSQL that was as SQL92 and beyond as it
> could possibly be rather than some of this and some of that.

I don't see how having alternate parsers available, maintained and
updated by those interested in them, is a bad thing. Certainly don't
see how it detracts from the main effort.

???

> Vince.
> --
> ==========================================================================
> Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev(at)michvhf(dot)com http://www.pop4.net
> 56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
> Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
> Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
> ==========================================================================

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-08-13 13:38:40 Re: PL/pgSQL bug?
Previous Message Gavin Sherry 2001-08-13 08:49:50 Re: example program bug?

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jan Wieck 2001-08-13 13:55:59 Re: Re: [PATCHES] Select parser at runtime
Previous Message Barry Lind 2001-08-13 08:39:34 Re: JDBC Array Support, Take 2