Ian Lance Taylor writes:
> Because my goal is a parser which can accept Oracle code directly, and
> Oracle does not use the same SQL syntax as Postgres. They are, of
> course, very similar, but it is not the case that all the differences
> are items missing from the Postgres parser. Some of them are items
> which Postgres does in a different, typically more standards-
> conforming, way.
I'm not sure whether I like the notion of having to maintain multiple
parsers in the future. We have always been quite fair in accepting
extensions and aliases for compatibility, so I don't see a problem there.
Then again, we're implemented an SQL server, not an Oracle server. If you
want to convert your application there's this ora2pg thing.
> For example: the datatypes have different names; the set of reserved
> words is different;
Unless you have implemented a different parsing algorithm or want to rip
out features you're going to have a hard time changing the set of reserved
words.
> Oracle uses a weird syntax for outer joins.
We had already rejected this idea. The earlier this disappears from the
face of the earth the better.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter