Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Hans-J�rgen Sch�nig wrote:
>> My compromise would be: Support both syntaxes if possible.
> I can see your point, but imagine if we had Oracle compatibility for
> lots of cases --- our system would have either non-standard or duplicate
> ways of doing things, and that would be quite confusing.
Oracle has the resources to outtalk, outshout, and outlast everyone else
on the SQL standards committee. Despite that, their syntax was not
adopted as the standard. This should give you some clue about how badly
their syntax sucks. Now why exactly should we adopt it?
regards, tom lane