Jan Wieck wrote:
> 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!
So you do see a difference between SET and DROP TABLE because the second
is a utility command. OK, I'll buy that, but my point was different.
My point was that we don't match Oracle for DROP TABLE, so why is
matching for SET so important?
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2002-04-26 14:49:55|
|Subject: Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2002-04-26 14:46:24|
|Subject: Re: pid gets overwritten in OSX |