Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Vince Vielhaber <vev(at)michvhf(dot)com>
Cc: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction
Date: 2002-04-25 21:25:47
Message-ID: 200204252125.g3PLPlx20356@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Marc is suggesting we may want to match Oracle somehow.

I just want to have our SET work on a sane manner.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > > > My guess is that we should implement #1 and see what feedback we get in
> > > > 7.3.
> > >
> > > IMHO, it hasn't been thought out well enough to be implemented yet ... the
> > > options have been, but which to implement haven't ... right now, #1 is
> > > proposing to implement something that goes against what *at least* one of
> > > DBMS does ... so now you have programmers coming from that environment
> > > expecting one thing to happen, when a totally different thing results ...
> >
> > But, they don't expect our current behavior either (which is really
> > weird). At least I haven't seen anyone complaining about our current
> > weird behavior, and we are improving it, at least as our users request
> > it.
> >
> > In fact, Oracle doesn't implement rollback for DROP TABLE, and we
> > clearly wanted that feature, so do we ignore rollback for SET too?
> >
> > I guess I don't see it as a killer if we can do better than Oracle, or
> > at least most of our users (including you) think it is better than
> > Oracle. If someone wants Oracle behavior after we do #1, we can add it,
> > right?
>
> I've often wondered why the "but that's how the other RDBMS is doing
> it" is only used when convenient. Case in point is the issue (that's
> been resolved) with the insert into foo(foo.bar) ... where every one
> I checked accepted it, but that wasn't a good enough reason for us to
> support it. Until the fact that applications that were using that
> syntax was causing PostgreSQL not to be used was the issue resolved.
> Now I'm seeing the "but that's the way Oracle does it" excuse being
> used to justify a change. Can we try for some consistancy?
>
> Vince.
> --
> ==========================================================================
> Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev(at)michvhf(dot)com http://www.pop4.net
> 56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
> Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
> Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
> ==========================================================================
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
>

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message F Harvell 2002-04-25 21:31:36 Re: non-standard escapes in string literals
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-04-25 21:14:43 Re: What is wrong with hashed index usage?