Message-ID: <484a27f9-dea5-4734-93d5-90fb757080bc@vondra.me>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2024 16:56:48 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Why mention to Oracle ?
To: Marcos Pegoraro <marcos@f10.com.br>,
 pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
References: <CAB-JLwYfMxxGB1NADtS5MgPWk9FjfsuPgKMXOCmu_MmcivAbTA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me>
In-Reply-To: <CAB-JLwYfMxxGB1NADtS5MgPWk9FjfsuPgKMXOCmu_MmcivAbTA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/484a27f9-dea5-4734-93d5-90fb757080bc%40vondra.me>
Precedence: bulk


On 9/20/24 14:36, Marcos Pegoraro wrote:
> Why PostgreSQL DOCs needs to show or compare the Oracle way of doing
> things ?
> 
> I understand that on page Porting from Oracle PL/SQL is ok to mention
> Oracle, but there are other places where it's not needed. Or, if it's ok
> to mention, why not mention SQL Server or MySQL or any other ?
> 

It's not quite clear to me whether your suggestion is to not mention any
other databases ever, or to always mention every existing one. ;-)

I didn't dig into all the places you mention, but I'd bet those places
reference Oracle simply because it was the most common DB people either
migrated from or needed to support in their application next to PG, and
thus were running into problems. The similarity of the interfaces and
SQL dialects also likely played a role. It's less likely to run into
subtle behavior differences e.g. SQL Server when you have to rewrite
T-SQL stuff from scratch anyway.


regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra