| From: | "Josh Tolley" <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: L |
| Date: | 2007-08-15 03:10:14 |
| Message-ID: | e7e0a2570708142010w760d320wc203ca2c97eece7e@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-www |
On 8/14/07, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> All,
>
> > Actually very few RDBMS support transactional DDL, though right this
> > second I do not remember what they do in case you issue DDL inside a
> > transaction. I would assume/hope that they give you an error and not do
> > an implicit commit.
>
> Speaking of which, we should make a big point of our transactional DDL as a
> feature. It's something that even some of the big proprietary DBs don't
> have.
I second that. Non-transactional DDL has been seriously bugging me in
dealings with Oracle lately.
- Yet Another Josh
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mike Rylander | 2007-08-15 03:46:55 | Re: default_text_search_config and expression indexes |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-08-15 02:13:49 | Re: default_text_search_config and expression indexes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Lukas Kahwe Smith | 2007-08-15 06:03:25 | Re: transactional DDL |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2007-08-14 21:23:33 | Re: transactional DDL |