From: | Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, Vince Vielhaber <vev(at)michvhf(dot)com>, Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction |
Date: | 2002-04-26 13:16:30 |
Message-ID: | 200204261316.g3QDGVe08779@saturn.janwieck.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Marc is suggesting we may want to match Oracle somehow.
> > >
> > > I just want to have our SET work on a sane manner.
> >
> > Myself, I wonder why Oracle went the route they went ... does anyone have
> > access to a Sybase / Informix system, to confirm how they do it? Is
> > Oracle the 'odd man out', or are we going to be that? *Adding* something
> > (ie. DROP TABLE rollbacks) that nobody appears to have is one thing ...
> > but changing the behaviour is a totally different ...
>
> Yes, let's find out what the others do. I don't see DROP TABLE
> rollbacking as totally different. How is it different from SET?
Man, you should know that our transactions are truly all or
nothing. If you discard a transaction, the stamps xmin and
xmax are ignored. This is a fundamental feature of Postgres,
and if you're half through a utility command when you ERROR
out, it guarantees consistency of the catalog. And now you
want us to violate this concept for compatibility to Oracle's
misbehaviour? No, thanks!
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2002-04-26 13:22:36 | Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction |
Previous Message | mlw | 2002-04-26 12:27:24 | Re: Block size: 8K or 16K? |