2014-09-02 11:50 GMT+02:00 Álvaro Hernández Tortosa <a...@nosys.es>:
> > On 02/09/14 11:31, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > > > 2014-09-02 11:25 GMT+02:00 Álvaro Hernández Tortosa <a...@nosys.es>: > >> >> On 02/09/14 05:24, Craig Ringer wrote: >> >>> I couldn't disagree more. >>> >>> If we were to implement anything, it'd be PL/PSM >>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL/PSM). I'm sure it's as bizarre and >>> quirky as anything else the SQL committee has brought forth, but it's at >>> least a standard(ish) language. >>> >> So we'd choose a bizarre and quirky language instead of anything >> better just because it's standard. I'm sure current and prospective users >> will surely prefer a bizarre and quirky language that is standard approved, >> rather than a modern, comfortable, easy-to-use, that is not embodied by the >> ISO. No doubt ^_^ >> >> > SQL/PSM is used in >>>DB2<<<, >>>Sybase Anywhere<<<, MySQL, > > > That's a way better argument that it's standard :))) > > Still, I think postgres is in the position of attracting more Oracle > than DB2+Sybase+MySQL users > Not all can be happy :) We can implement SQL/PSM in conformity with ANSI SQL. But we cannot to implement PL/SQL be in 20% compatible with oracle - Aggegates, pipe functions, collections, without rewriting lot code. I remember lot of projects that promises compatibility with Oracle based on Firebird -- all are dead. Now situation is little bit different - there are big press for migration from Oracle, but Oracle is too big monster. Pavel > > Álvaro > >
