On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 12:18:31PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 12:10 PM, David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 11:58:20AM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 4:17 AM, Pierre C <li...@peufeu.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> My opinion is that PostgreSQL should accept any MySQL syntax > >> >> and return warnings. I believe that we should access even > >> >> innodb syntax and turn it immediately into PostgreSQL tables. > >> >> This would allow people with no interest in SQL to migrate > >> >> from MySQL to PostgreSQL without any harm. > >> > > >> > A solution would be a SQL proxy (a la pgpool) with query > >> > rewriting. > >> > >> This sounds like a better idea... > > > > Aside from that little "halting problem" issue, it sounds > > wonderful. You do know that SQL is Turing-complete, right? > > That seems largely irrelevant to the problem at hand. It's not > impossible to do syntactic transformations from one Turing-complete > langauge to another; if it were, there could be no such thing as a > compiler.
MySQL's SQL isn't Turing complete. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
