| From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Need concrete "Why Postgres not MySQL" |
| Date: | 2003-08-21 13:21:01 |
| Message-ID: | 871xvfjgea.fsf@stark.dyndns.tv |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> writes:
> Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
>
> >On 21 Aug 2003 at 0:22, Ian Barwick wrote:
> >
> >>* DDL
> >>- Data definition language (table creation statements etc.) in MySQL
> >>are not transaction based and cannot be rolled back.
> >
> > Just wondering, what other databases has transactable DDLs? oracle seems to
> > have autonomous transactions which is arthogonal.
> >
> M$ SQL2000 has (and previous versions had too, I believe)
In Oracle DDL (including truncate!) was special and wasn't in a transaction.
I always just assumed that was just the way it had to be.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2003-08-21 14:18:28 | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Need concrete "Why Postgres not MySQL" |
| Previous Message | Manfred Koizar | 2003-08-21 13:05:52 | Re: [HACKERS] Need concrete "Why Postgres not MySQL" bullet list |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-08-21 13:36:39 | Re: query optimization: aggregate and distinct |
| Previous Message | Vilson farias | 2003-08-21 13:11:01 | timeofday() and CAST |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jon Jensen | 2003-08-21 14:03:27 | Re: Can't find thread on Linux memory overcommit |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2003-08-21 13:19:24 | Re: Can't find thread on Linux memory overcommit |