On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 12:43 PM, David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> wrote: > 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.
It still doesn't matter. Turing-completeness does not preclude syntax transformation. Non-Turing completeness, even less so. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
