Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Need concrete "Why Postgres not MySQL"

From: "Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Need concrete "Why Postgres not MySQL"
Date: 2003-08-21 14:18:29
Message-ID: 3F45220D.26753.144CEF0@localhost
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

On 21 Aug 2003 at 9:21, Greg Stark wrote:
> Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> writes:
> > Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> > > Just wondering, what other databases has transactable DDLs? oracle seems to
> > > have autonomous transactions which is arthogonal.
> > >
> > M$ SQL2000 has (and previous versions had too, I believe)
>
> In Oracle DDL (including truncate!) was special and wasn't in a transaction.
> I always just assumed that was just the way it had to be.

That is the autonomous transaction. Right now I am looking at
interbase/firebird documentation. It looks like it has automous DDL transaction
as well..

Bye
Shridhar

--
Collaboration, n.: A literary partnership based on the false assumption that
the other fellow can spell.

In response to

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andreas Pflug 2003-08-21 16:04:56 Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Need concrete "Why Postgres not MySQL"
Previous Message Shridhar Daithankar 2003-08-21 14:18:28 Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Need concrete "Why Postgres not MySQL"

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-08-21 14:40:39 Re: timeofday() and CAST
Previous Message Shridhar Daithankar 2003-08-21 14:18:28 Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Need concrete "Why Postgres not MySQL"

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-08-21 14:23:32 Re: postgresql 7.3.2 bug on date '1901-12-13' and '1901-12
Previous Message Shridhar Daithankar 2003-08-21 14:18:28 Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Need concrete "Why Postgres not MySQL"