Dennis Bjorklund wrote:
>Having two parsers would be a nightmare to maintain.
Probably. It just came to my mind because one visitor mentioned he would
look at the bison stuff to do it himself. I meant to enable him to do so
if he likes (and can) without hacking the core product.
>If anything one could have one parser that handles oracle syntax and give
>errors on such constructs unless some variable is set.
>The question is how much of the problems that are pure syntax and what
>needs deeper changes. My guess is that just changing some syntax will not
>be enough to make many oracle program work.
That's true, it's the question how much can be offered without too much
I'm not too deep in oracle stuff, what comes to my mind is
- outer join syntax (parser thing)
- sequences usage (parser too)
- maybe stored procedure call, with a wrapper to convert output
parameters to a composite return value.
There's certainly no point supporting any weird ddl command, so there's
still porting work to be done when migrating.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andreas Pflug||Date: 2004-07-03 17:31:05|
|Subject: Re: LinuxTag wrapup|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2004-07-03 17:04:25|
|Subject: Re: LinuxTag wrapup |