Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction

From: Vince Vielhaber <vev(at)michvhf(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, 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: 2002-04-25 21:04:30
Message-ID: Pine.BSF.4.40.0204251701240.3369-100000@paprika.michvhf.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > > My guess is that we should implement #1 and see what feedback we get in
> > > 7.3.
> >
> > IMHO, it hasn't been thought out well enough to be implemented yet ... the
> > options have been, but which to implement haven't ... right now, #1 is
> > proposing to implement something that goes against what *at least* one of
> > DBMS does ... so now you have programmers coming from that environment
> > expecting one thing to happen, when a totally different thing results ...
>
> But, they don't expect our current behavior either (which is really
> weird). At least I haven't seen anyone complaining about our current
> weird behavior, and we are improving it, at least as our users request
> it.
>
> In fact, Oracle doesn't implement rollback for DROP TABLE, and we
> clearly wanted that feature, so do we ignore rollback for SET too?
>
> I guess I don't see it as a killer if we can do better than Oracle, or
> at least most of our users (including you) think it is better than
> Oracle. If someone wants Oracle behavior after we do #1, we can add it,
> right?

I've often wondered why the "but that's how the other RDBMS is doing
it" is only used when convenient. Case in point is the issue (that's
been resolved) with the insert into foo(foo.bar) ... where every one
I checked accepted it, but that wasn't a good enough reason for us to
support it. Until the fact that applications that were using that
syntax was causing PostgreSQL not to be used was the issue resolved.
Now I'm seeing the "but that's the way Oracle does it" excuse being
used to justify a change. Can we try for some consistancy?

Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev(at)michvhf(dot)com http://www.pop4.net
56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Neil Conway 2002-04-25 21:04:44 Re: What is wrong with hashed index usage?
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-04-25 20:38:00 Re: What is wrong with hashed index usage?