From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa <aht(at)nosys(dot)es> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |
Date: | 2014-09-03 22:48:35 |
Message-ID: | 54079AC3.2030509@commandprompt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 09/03/2014 11:48 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Anyway, to get back around to the topic of PL/SQL compatibility
> specifically, if you care about that issue, pick one thing that exists
> in PL/SQL but not in PL/pgsql and try to do something about it. Maybe
> it'll be something that EnterpiseDB has already done something about,
> in which case, if your patch gets committed, Advanced Server will lose
> a bit of distinction as compared with PostgreSQL. Or maybe it'll be
> something that EnterpriseDB hasn't done anything about, and then
> everybody comes out strictly ahead. What I think you shouldn't do
> (although you're free to ignore me) is continue thinking of Oracle
> compatibility as one monolithic thing, because it isn't, or to pursue
> of a course of trying to get the PostgreSQL community to slavishly
> follow Oracle, because I think you'll fail, and even if you succeed I
> don't think the results will actually be positive for PostgreSQL.
Well put Robert.
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
High Availability, Oracle Conversion, @cmdpromptinc
"If we send our children to Caesar for their education, we should
not be surprised when they come back as Romans."
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Noah Yetter | 2014-09-03 23:12:30 | Re: Pg_upgrade and toast tables bug discovered |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2014-09-03 22:44:53 | Re: 9.5: Memory-bounded HashAgg |