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

> 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