On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I should have commented on this earlier: I don't think exact Oracle
> > compatibility is _at all_ important.
>
> The results of Pavel's experiments prove that Oracle's behavior is
> pretty random --- it looks to me like the chance results of whatever
What I can speek. Oracle has session variable for saving err code of last
exception. On the start of session is zero. After executing any EXCEPTION
BLOCK is this session zeroed. I can't to see so it's buggy behavior.
We have more possibilities, because wont to implement it only for PL/pgSQL
and can do more complicated solutions. Maybe on general level, Oracle's
developers had to use only solution on session variable.
> quick-and-dirty implementation someone chose long ago, rather than
> behavior that was thought out and agreed to. I concur that we shouldn't
> feel a compulsion to match it exactly, especially seeing that we
true. Compatibility isn't tabu, but sometimes is very usefull ;-), and
motivation for future.
> aren't going to match it exactly in terms of the contents of the
> variables, let alone fine details of what they may contain at different
> times.
>
Pavel
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match
