Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I don't object if we can be sure that it's implementing the
> > syntax a final version with *real* cursor support will have.
> > Can we?
>
> I don't know, and I don't know what the decision criteria are.
>
> I intentionally implemented the Oracle cursor syntax. PL/pgSQL is
> very similar to PL/SQL, and I didn't see any reason to introduce a
> spurious difference. Note in particular that simply passing
> OPEN/FETCH/CLOSE through to the Postgres SQL parser does not implement
> the Oracle cursor syntax, so I wouldn't have done that even if it
> would have worked.
Maybe it's "very similar" because I had an Oracle PL/SQL
language reference at hand while writing the grammar file,
maybe it's just by accident :-)
>
> (I have a vested interest here. For various reasons, my company,
> Zembu, has an interest in minimizing the strain of porting
> applications from Oracle to Postgres. I assume that the Postgres team
> also has that interest, within reason. But I don't know for sure.)
Who hasn't? O.K., you convinced me.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== [EMAIL PROTECTED] #
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
