Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:43:45 +0100
> "Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > we develop PostgreSQL, but why create own syntax for all? Why? Only so
> > we develop PostgreSQL? We have different implementation and different
> > limit, but why create different syntax, I don't understand. It's like
> > Microsoft. Lot of things are little bit incompatible.
>
> O.k. hold on guys. I really don't care what you do with plpgsql. I
> don't use it unless I absolutely have to anyway. All I was doing was
> saying that:
>
> A. I could give flying donkey butt about being the Oracle-Compatible
> community.
Well, our standard process is to check the ANSI syntax and if the
feature we want isn't mentioned we look at how Oracle or other databases
do it for ideas. I don't see why that should change.
pl/PgSQL already is aimed at being Oracle compatible so why complain
that the author wants to use Oracle syntax if possible. If you don't
care, that is fine, but as a project we do, at least in helping people
migrate to Postgres from other databases.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +