bruce wrote:
> I talked to the Orafce author. He says Orace is focused on adding
> missing Oracle functionality to Postgres, rather than helping in
> porting.
>
> For example, decode() was only added in Orafce 3.0beta because Postgres
> already has the CASE statement. Also, NVL is COALESCE:
>
>
> http://forums.devshed.com/postgresql-help-21/does-postgresql-7-4-supports-nvl-decode-function-which-are-178892.html
>
> For this reason, I suggest we rewrite decode() and NVL to be
> ANSI-standard Postgres and Oracle supported syntax, rather than using
> Orafce for these cases.
>
> FYI, Orafce 2.1.4 works on Postgres 8.1, while 3.0.0.beta3 does not
> compile. I can probably get that fixed if we want 3.0.0 for some
> reason, but we might be better going with the more stable 2.1.X release.
Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. On this page:
https://fedorahosted.org/spacewalk/wiki/PostgresTechnicalApproach
we list the four query types:
1. work unchanged in both Oracle and Postgres
2. can be rewritten to work on both databases, e.g. ANSI joins,
CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, CASE instead of decode(), COALESCE instead of NVL()
3. (same) but requires db changes, e.g. add compatibility functions
from Orafce
4. need to create a Postgres-specific version of the query
Previously I mentioned decode() in #3, but I have now updated the wiki
to mention the use of CASE intead of decode, etc. I think we should be
doing #3 only if we can't easily rewrite the query to be a #2.
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
_______________________________________________
Spacewalk-devel mailing list
Spacewalk-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-devel
