Joshua D. Drake wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:43:45 +0100 > "Pavel Stehule" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
