[BrentOzar]

> I have to wonder if they’ve found it not worth the time to make it fully production ready.

It sounds like it's not compatible with all T-SQL commands and data types. It would be tough to get full feature completeness: Microsoft is constantly adding new stuff in each version, like the ability to run Java stored procedures, R & Python in the database, etc. Open sourcing it would let companies expand it to get specific features coded that they need - that otherwise might not get attention from the general public.

[mjasay]

Correct. The focus is on 100% correctness. As I wrote in the post: "Over its 35 years in existence, SQL Server has evolved to meet a wide array of use cases. When first made available on GitHub, Babelfish won’t be able to handle every use case, but will be able to tackle the most common application scenarios. Most importantly, Babelfish will meet the correctness objective. That is, if Babelfish doesn’t yet support specific SQL Server functionality, it will return an error to the application, rather than defaulting to PostgreSQL behavior. Why? Because, again, developers (and the enterprises for which they work) must be able to depend absolutely on the correctness of SQL Server compatibility."

At launch Babelfish will be able to handle - with 100% correctness - the main semantics you'd want. HOWEVER, as you said (and as mentioned in the post), there's a large surface area, and a "long tail" of functionality that needs expertise from us and others to cover. So to do this right, it needs a community. It will be great for many use cases right from the start, but to ensure it's great/perfect for your use case...well, that just might take your help. Please work with us on this.

[Yeroc]

Interesting. Now where's the Oracle-to-Postgres Translation project? ;-)

[Grazester]

Their legal team might still be preparing for this one given Oracle's reputation.

[topspin]

SCOTUS hasn't yet ruled on Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc. One imagines that if Oracle prevails in some demonstrative manner they may very well believe their flavor of SQL is a software interface protected by copywrite.

So will all the other 'software interface' owners of the world.

[xet7]

So if Oracle wins, can AWS sue Oracle for Oracle having implemented AWS S3 API ?

https://docs.cloud.oracle.com/en-us/iaas/Content/Object/Task...

[topspin]

AWS can probably sue most of the valley for that one.

[zozbot234]

IBM might have something to say about that, though.

[topspin]

Wouldn't that be ironic.

[pjmlp]

Apparently everyone keeps forgetting about ISO.

[topspin]

That's because everyone knows about the delta between ISO and real implementations.

[tyldum]

I have used ora2pg with great success.

[jpalomaki]

Some time ago there was big news about Amazon migrating away from Oracle. Related to this?

Announcing this first for SQL server might be a way to launch softly and learn.

[homarp]

isn't that what enterprisedb is selling ?

[linuxhiker]

Yes but it isn't Open Source.

[dragonwriter]

Amazon acquiring EDB and rolling some of the currently-proprietary bits like the Oracle compatibility layer into open source Postgres while increasing resources to developing them could be an interesting play.

[mattashii]

Would you know if Babelfish will be released for RDS for PostgreSQL as well?

The only mentions so far are for Aurora for PostgreSQL, or self-hosted PostgreSQL.

[Tostino]

Very good question, seems to be a strange decision. Maybe it doesn't meet what they deem up to the standards to include it in RDS due to the nature of how the backend is hosted (just a guess). Could be something as simple as the dependencies the extension requires are incompatible with what the RDS servers run. It would be very nice if the RDS team had some guidelines on what it takes to get an extension accepted for RDS with a good framework people can follow to ensure their extension complies with the security requirements, etc. Then have a way to submit an extension to be included and have it be reviewed and given guidance on any changes needed to comply (for a fee potentially).

[throw_m239339]

At that point, thinking that SQL somehow is "portable" from a DB to another is a bit of a mirage. Way too many differences between systems, which does influence data modelling itself.