Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] drop/rename table and transactions

From: "Mike Mascari" <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com>
To: "Lamar Owen" <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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 20:32:04
Message-ID: 199911262030.PAA02358@corvette.mascari.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackers
> From: Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>
> On Fri, 26 Nov 1999, Mike Mascari wrote:
> > > Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> 
> > What does ORACLE do here?
> 
> > > > Since ORACLE has 70% of the RDBMS market, it is the de facto
standard
> > > 
> > > Yes, and Windows is the de facto standard operating system.  I don't
use
> > > Windows, and I'm not willing to follow Oracle's lead when they make a
> > > bad decision...
> 
> > So I guess I should file away my other suggestion to use DCOM as 
> > the object technology of choice instead of CORBA? ;-)
> 
> This is a Free Software project -- PostgreSQL is not bound by the
decisions of
> the 'market leader' any more than Linux is bound by the standards of
Microsoft.

The DCOM remark was just a joke ;-). My remark concerning ORACLE was in
response to Andreas' comment that implicit COMMITs of DDL statements was
absurd. I wanted to simply point out that, since ORACLE has 70% market
share,
most corporate database developers EXPECT their DDL statements to commit
their transactions (if they've RTFM). I also pointed out that it would be
GREAT 
if PostgreSQL could successfully rollback DDL statements sanely (and thus 
diverge from ORACLE). I guess I don't expect that to happen successfully
until 
something the equivalent of TABLESPACES is implemented and there is a 
disassociation between table names, index names and their filesystem 
counterparts and to be able to "undo" filesystem operations. That, it seems
to 
me, will be a major undertaking and not going to happen any time soon...

I'll stop swinging at windmills now...

Mike Mascari



Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Lamar OwenDate: 1999-11-26 21:51:55
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] drop/rename table and transactions
Previous:From: Lamar OwenDate: 1999-11-26 20:04:20
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] drop/rename table and transactions

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Lamar OwenDate: 1999-11-26 21:51:55
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] drop/rename table and transactions
Previous:From: Lamar OwenDate: 1999-11-26 20:04:20
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] drop/rename table and transactions

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group