| From: | "Alexander Staubo" <alex(at)purefiction(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Harpreet Dhaliwal" <harpreet(dot)dhaliwal01(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Postgres General" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Transactional DDL |
| Date: | 2007-08-15 09:32:23 |
| Message-ID: | 88daf38c0708150232u63ef6c5ep3e111d1f058ae866@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 8/15/07, Harpreet Dhaliwal <harpreet(dot)dhaliwal01(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> And this feature i.e. transactional DDL is not there in other major RDBMS
> like sql server, oracle etc?
The subject of transactional DDL and its prevalence was discussed in a
May thread, "why postgresql over other RDBMS"
(http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2007-05/msg01151.php).
It was pointed out that Ingres, Firebird, InterBase and NonStop SQL
also supported transactional DDL, as did a couple of legacy database
systems now sold by Oracle -- no other products support transactional
DDL.
(You keep asking the list about novel features that supposedly make
PostgreSQL unique or superior. Still haven't found a thesis topic?)
Alexander.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John Coulthard | 2007-08-15 09:55:45 | Re: Unable to connect to PostgreSQL server via PHP |
| Previous Message | Jan de Visser | 2007-08-15 09:15:07 | Re: Transactional DDL |