| From: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Mike Mascari'" <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | AW: AW: [HACKERS] TRANSACTIONS |
| Date: | 2000-02-24 09:08:43 |
| Message-ID: | 219F68D65015D011A8E000006F8590C604AF7CF4@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> >
> > OK. May be I miss something.
>
> I don't think so. Not with respect to Oracle. Andreas knows that
> Oracle implicitly commits your running transaction -- and starts
> a new one whenever a DDL statement is encountered. A large
> discussion about this arose about 4 months ago...I can't speak
> for DB2.
Yes, sorry, I think we should leave out the ddl statements here.
The real essential part is the dml statement block in this example.
Since the create table was the first statement in the block,
the only difference between the other db's is wheather the table
exists after a rollback. They will all have the table with one row in
it after a commit.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB | 2000-02-24 09:18:58 | AW: [GENERAL] Re: [HACKERS] TRANSACTIONS |
| Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB | 2000-02-24 09:04:10 | AW: AW: [HACKERS] TRANSACTIONS |