2014-09-02 11:40 GMT+02:00 Álvaro Hernández Tortosa <a...@nosys.es>:
> > On 02/09/14 06:40, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Craig Ringer <cr...@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. >> >> regards, tom lane >> >> >> > OK, so this compatibility layer is tough. Knew that already ;) But on > the other side, the syntax is similar to plpgsql, right? So what about just > having a compatible syntax? It would be the first step to that > compatibility layer, which could -or could not- be a long-term goal for > postgres (having the whole layer). > > I don't buy that having that would cut EDB's air supply. They're doing > great, and they know how to take care of themselves, I'm sure ;) Besides > that, "competition" is always positive, and I'm sure they'd be more > benefited than harmed by postgres having that layer. > > If we are to have another plpgsql-like language (like plpgsql2) and we > could design it so it would attract many many users (let's not forget that > Oracle may have around two orders of magnitude more users than pg), that > would benefit us all greatly. Even if not perfect. Even if it is a longer > project which spans more than one release. But just having the syntax (or > most of it, maybe avoiding some complex unimplemented postgres features, if > that required a huge effort) is a big win. > > For 9.4, we have the media already saying "Postgres has NoSQL > capabilities" (which is only partially true). For x.y we could have the > media saying "Postgres adds Oracle compatibility" (which would be only > partially true). But that brings a lot of users to postgres, and that helps > us all. > Partial true can enforce so lot of people will hate postgres too. False promises are wrong > > And also.... it could serve as a motivation point to implement those > in-core missing features, too, that Oracle has. > > If on the other hand we resign from attracting Oracle users, in a > moment where non-Oracle databases are fighting for them..... and we lose > here.... well, let's at least have a very compelling, attractive, in-core, > blessed, language. Even disliking it myself, PL/JavaScript would be my #1 > candidate there. > > My 4 (already) cents, > > Álvaro > > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers >
