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

Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction

From: Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>,"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 15:15:08
Message-ID: 200204261515.g3QFF9C16210@saturn.janwieck.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 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?

    Good  point,  I  never  understood the compatibility issue on
    this level either. Applications that  create/drop  tables  at
    runtime  are  IMNSVHO  self-modifying  code.  Thus,  I  don't
    consider it a big porting issue.   Applications  that  do  it
    should be "replaced", not ported.


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 #



In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-04-26 15:20:52
Subject: Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-04-26 15:10:18
Subject: Re: PSQL \x \l command issues

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