On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 01:03:08PM -0700, Mischa Sandberg wrote:
> >On Thursday 18 May 2006 12:38, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >>Personally, I'd go after MSSQL before I bothered with MySQL. Sure, let's
> >>make *migration* easier for those who wake up and smell the BS, but
> >>migration can (and probably should) be one-way.
>
> 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).
>
> The stumbling blocks are not in language, but function. Many of those
> functions are rarely used, but some big ones are quite common ...
>
> T-SQL has statement-level triggers, and they get used a lot (some big apps
> ONLY put code in triggers). Statement-level triggers are very efficient for
> maintaining aggregates; the closest PG has are rewrite rules.
Yeah, I wish PostgreSQL had them. I've got clients that could certainly
make use of them.
> For high-end MSSQL shops, a high value is being able to trace and profile
> (EXPLAIN) every client SQL command from the server side ... with plenty of
> options for selective trace.
This would also be highly valuable to have in PostgreSQL.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461