Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Writing oracle/postgress generic SQL

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Richard Troy <rtroy(at)ScienceTools(dot)com>
Cc: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Ben Edwards <funkytwig(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Writing oracle/postgress generic SQL
Date: 2007-02-26 21:48:49
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-general
>>  Unless, as with rare beasties like Science Tools, the
>> major purpose of the application is to support multiple DBMS
>> back-ends, it's just too expensive.  Even in those rare cases, it's
>> expensive.
> I guess anything you have to pay for is too expensive. (Sounds like dogma
> to me. And you know what dogma makes - just don't step in it.)

*cough* There really isn't a good argument in general for abstracting
out database access to support multiple platforms.

The only argument I ever see is:

We want our product to support as many databases as possible. Which is
certainly a valid business argument but certainly not a good technical

>>> Are there things it misses?  Yes, but not much.  I'll take the wild
>>> guess that more than 80% of applications are completely and
>>> adequately served.
>> That says something about the applications you've seen, and not about
>> the adequacy of such a library.
> That remark is uninformed and arrogantly presumptuous about both me and
> the library, and uninsightful regarding the implementation of
> applications. It's also needlessly offensive, if you'll forgive the pun.

I am not sure why you would be offended by another's experience. I am
offended that you are offended that he wasn't offended. Good lord, take
a breath.

I would agree that in my experience most applications that choose to
abstract their database usage generally make bad choices in how they do
it and thus have a negative impact on not only the survivability of
existing code but the maintainability of said code.

Are their apps out there that do it right? Oh probably, I have never
seen one though.

> The short of it is that Science Tools is surely not alone in having
> developed an SQL dialect translator, though we may be the only ones to
> offer it to customers. Either way, automated dialect translation, whether
> by us otherwise, is another useful choice whether _you_ like it or not.

useful not always == good.

Windows is useful.

Windows is not good.

Joshua D. Drake

> Ciao,
> Richard


      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project:
PostgreSQL Replication:

In response to

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: David FetterDate: 2007-02-26 22:02:55
Subject: Re: Writing oracle/postgress generic SQL
Previous:From: Filipe FernandesDate: 2007-02-26 20:44:51
Subject: Re: General Ledger db design

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group