| From: | Ian Barwick <barwick(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] Need concrete "Why Postgres not MySQL" bullet list |
| Date: | 2003-08-21 20:28:52 |
| Message-ID: | 200308212228.52535.barwick@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Thursday 21 August 2003 11:15, 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.
DB2 8.1 seems to support transaction-capable DDL. At least, a rollback
following a CREATE TABLE causes the table to disappear. Haven't gone
into it in any depth.
Ian Barwick
barwick(at)gmx(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ian Barwick | 2003-08-21 20:43:40 | Re: Need concrete "Why Postgres not MySQL" bullet |
| Previous Message | Ian Barwick | 2003-08-21 20:19:57 | Re: [GENERAL] [HACKERS] Need concrete "Why Postgres not MySQL" bullet list |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Edmund Dengler | 2003-08-21 20:42:24 | Re: Buglist |
| Previous Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2003-08-21 20:22:37 | Re: Buglist |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-08-21 20:42:20 | Re: [SQL] "SELECT IN" Still Broken in 7.4b |
| Previous Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2003-08-21 20:22:37 | Re: Buglist |