| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Lincoln Yeoh <lylyeoh(at)mecomb(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, PostgreSQL Developers List <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] drop/rename table and transactions |
| Date: | 1999-11-26 06:52:32 |
| Message-ID: | 14945.943599152@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Mike Mascari wrote:
>> This is one of the few areas that I disagree with the development
>> trend in PostgreSQL. Every release contains different bugs related to
>> DDL statements in transactions. The developers appear to want to make
>> them work (i.e., have the ability to rollback a DROP TABLE, ALTER
>> TABLE ADD COLUMN, etc.). This, in my opinion, goes far above and
>> beyond the call of duty for a RDBMS. Oracle issues an implicit COMMIT
>> whenever a DDL statement is found.
So, the limits of our ambition should be to be as good as Oracle?
(Only one-half :-) here.)
I've seen quite a few discussions on the mailing lists about
applications that could really use rollback-able DDL commands.
Personally, I certainly wouldn't give up any reliability for this,
and darn little performance; but within those constraints I think
we should do what we can.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Adriaan Joubert | 1999-11-26 07:12:09 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Update of bitmask type |
| Previous Message | Stephen Birch | 1999-11-26 06:42:09 | Re: [GENERAL] Table names case sensitive? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chairudin Sentosa Harjo | 1999-11-26 06:55:13 | Re: pg_ctl |
| Previous Message | Vadim Mikheev | 1999-11-26 06:42:07 | Re: [HACKERS] Concurrent VACUUM: first results |