On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 02:58:17PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > Mischa, > > > Somebody earlier was mentioning, why no automatic transformer from > > Transact-SQL to PLPGSQL (maybe with a bunch of glue routines). The grammar > > is not a problem, though you have to wonder at all the wired-in keywords > > (T-SQL always felt like COBOL). > > Actually, porting TSQL to PL/pgSQL would be very hard. I speak as an expert > TSQL developer. For example, most data manipulation in TSQL is done through > updatable cursors, something we don't currently support. Also, T-SQL uses > un-ordered, callable parameters for SPs, something which we *also* don't > support.
And TSQL doesn't fail a transaction on an error, resulting in code like UPDATE ... if @@error = 0 then UPDATE ... end if @@error = 0 then ... Makes for a lot of needless bloat when going to PostgreSQL. Supposedly this is changed in MSSQL05 though. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match