Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.29])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 101B71337BEA
	for <pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 16 Feb 2011 11:11:50 -0400 (AST)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 90207-01-3 for
	<pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 16 Feb 2011 15:11:44 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 149F01337C2A
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 11:11:27 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id p1GFBNUa024671;
	Wed, 16 Feb 2011 10:11:23 -0500 (EST)
To: Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater@gmx.net>
cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Oracle Equivalent queries in Postgres 
In-reply-to: <ijgcn2$gcc$1@dough.gmane.org> 
References: <4D5BAA07.7060704@subexworld.com>
	<AANLkTinJ-0jttRsp_DysUT+a8HAv-sXxK4xy5aCmM60H@mail.gmail.com>
	<ijgb0i$83b$1@dough.gmane.org>
	<AANLkTimtSJkF+o3f6OcHgqE1GE5m89ycMc1UL=48XUix@mail.gmail.com>
	<ijgcn2$gcc$1@dough.gmane.org>
Comments: In-reply-to Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater@gmx.net>
	message dated "Wed, 16 Feb 2011 12:33:54 +0100"
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 10:11:23 -0500
Message-ID: <24670.1297869083@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.91 tagged_above=-5 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9,
	T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 201102/81
X-Sequence-Number: 35157

Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater@gmx.net> writes:
> Pavel Stehule, 16.02.2011 12:20:
>>> Unfortunately they are not the same: Oracle does not support
>>> INFORMATION_SCHEMA

>> sorry, I expected so all mature databases support it.

> Yes, this is really hard to understand.

> I would assume creating the INFORMATION_SCHEMA views based on the existing Oracle views is just a matter of maybe 3-4 days of days work. So it is really not understandable that Oracle does not support this.

> But then they probably don't care - after all it's Oracle.

No, from their point of view it would be actively damaging: providing
standardized views would reduce customer lock-in, by making applications
more portable to other DBMSes.  The pain the OP is feeling is a
marketing advantage, so far as Oracle is concerned.

			regards, tom lane