On 09/02/2014 06:50 PM, Jan Wieck wrote:
On 09/02/2014 06:41 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 09/02/2014 02:47 PM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote:
Yeah, we differ there. I think having an Oracle compatibility
layer
in PostgreSQL would be the-next-big-thing we could have. Oracle is has
orders of magnitude bigger user base than postgres has; and having the
ability to attract them would bring us many many more users which, in
turn, would benefit us all very significantly.
It would be my #1 priority to do in postgres (but yes, I know
-guess- how hard and what resources that would require). But
dreaming is
free :)
Oracle compatibility certainly has merit, I just don't see it as useful
for core. I would be far more interested in MSSQL compatibility
honestly. That said, Postgres itself is a rockstar and I think we can
make our own case without having to copy others.
PL/pgSQL's syntax was modelled to look like PL/SQL. Which is a
Ada/COBOL lookalike.
Ada yes, COBOL no.
Instead of trying to mimic what it was or a T-SQL thing instead ...
maybe it is time to come up with a true PostgreSQL specific PL for a
change?
Just for the sake of being something new, and not a copy of some old
opossum, that's rotting like road kill on the side of the highway for
a decade already.
People are free to do what they want, but to my mind that would be a
massive waste of resources, and probably imposing a substantial extra
maintenance burden on the core committers.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
