Mischa, > Somebody earlier was mentioning, why no automatic transformer from > Transact-SQL to PLPGSQL (maybe with a bunch of glue routines). The grammar > is not a problem, though you have to wonder at all the wired-in keywords > (T-SQL always felt like COBOL).
Actually, porting TSQL to PL/pgSQL would be very hard. I speak as an expert TSQL developer. For example, most data manipulation in TSQL is done through updatable cursors, something we don't currently support. Also, T-SQL uses un-ordered, callable parameters for SPs, something which we *also* don't support. > Other issues: stored procs returning multiple result sets; "print" > statements; SELECT TOP n PERCENT; COMPUTE-expressions (subtotals); and some > of the @@global variables that are hard to emulate @@IDENTITY being the > main problem in older T-SQL code. Yeah, but @@IDENTITY sucks. Most MSSQL developers are glad to leave it behind. ;-) -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
