Re: PL/pgSQL 2

On 09/02/2014 02:11 PM, David Johnston wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com
> <mailto:jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>>wrote:
>
>
> On 09/02/2014 09:48 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> As a case in point, EDB have spent quite a few man-years on
> their Oracle
> compatibility layer; and it's still not a terribly exact
> match, according
> to my colleagues who have looked at it. So that is a
> tarbaby I don't
> personally care to touch ... even ignoring the fact that
> cutting off
> EDB's air supply wouldn't be a good thing for the community
> to do.
>
>
> What any commercial entity and the Community do are mutually
> exclusive and we can not and should not determine what features we
> will support based on any commercial endeavor.
>
>
> ​From where I sit the "mutually exclusive" argument doesn't seem to be
> true - and in fact is something I think would be bad if it were. We
> shouldn't be afraid to add features to core that vendors are offering
> but at the same time the fact that the Oracle compatibility aspects are
> commercial instead of in-core is a plus to help ensure that there are
> people making a decent living off PostgreSQL and thus are invested in

Far more people make a very good living off of PostgreSQL than *any*
commercial variant. I stand by what I said. It is not the responsibility
or the care of the community what a commercial vendor does or does not
do with their fork except, possibly to implement the open source
equivalent where it makes sense or where licensing may not be followed.
(Read: I don't care about oracle compatibility)

--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
High Availability, Oracle Conversion, @cmdpromptinc
"If we send our children to Caesar for their education, we should
not be surprised when they come back as Romans."