Re: PL/pgSQL 2

On Tue, Sep  2, 2014 at 12:40:14AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > If someone came up with a convincing PL/SQL compatibility layer then
> > it'd be worth considering adopting - when it was ready. But of course,
> > anyone who does the work for that is quite likely to want to sell it to
> > cashed-up Oracle users looking to save a few hundred grand on per-CPU
> > licensing.
> 
> As a case in point, EDB have spent quite a few man-years on their Oracle
> compatibility layer; and it's still not a terribly exact match, according
> to my colleagues who have looked at it.  So that is a tarbaby I don't
> personally care to touch ... even ignoring the fact that cutting off
> EDB's air supply wouldn't be a good thing for the community to do.

FYI, the docs of what EDB has done are online:

Server:http://www.enterprisedb.com/docs/en/9.3/eeguide/Table%2520of%2520Contents.htm

Server packages, e.g.
DBMS_:http://www.enterprisedb.com/docs/en/9.3/eeguide/Postgres_Plus_Enterprise_Edition_Guide-52.htm#P14240_790554

Oracle Compatibility Guide:http://www.enterprisedb.com/docs/en/9.3/oracompat/Table%2520of%2520Contents.htm

PL/SQL, called Stored Procedure
Language:http://www.enterprisedb.com/docs/en/9.3/oracompat/Postgres_Plus_Advanced_Server_Oracle_Compatibility_Guide-78.htm#P6933_375311

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + Everyone has their own god. +