"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > That's basically how the existing patch approached the problem. It invents a > > new type of join and a new type of tuplestore that behaves this way. This > > has > > the advantage of working the way Oracle users expect and being relatively > > simple conceptually. It has the disadvantage of locking us into what's > > basically a nested loop join and not reusing existing join code so it's > > quite > > a large patch. > > I believe our Syntax should be whatever the standard dictates, > regardless of Oracle.
Well the issue here isn't one of syntax. The syntax is really an orthogonal issue. The basic question is whether to treat this as a new type of plan node with its behaviour hard coded or whether to try to reuse existing join types executing them recursively on their output. I can see advantages either way. As far as the syntax goes, now that I've actually read up on both, I have to say: I'm not entirely sure I'm happy IBM won this battle. The Oracle syntax is simple easy to use. The IBM/ANSI syntax is, well, baroque. There's a certain logical beauty to it but I can't see users being happy trying to figure out how to use it. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org