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.
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" |
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" |
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" |