Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Need concrete "Why Postgres not MySQL"
От | Andreas Pflug |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Need concrete "Why Postgres not MySQL" |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3F44EDA8.1040807@pse-consulting.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Need concrete "Why Postgres not MySQL" ("Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Shridhar Daithankar wrote: >On 21 Aug 2003 at 9:21, Greg Stark wrote: > > > >>Andreas Pflug <pgadmin@pse-consulting.de> writes: >> >> >> >>>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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>M$ SQL2000 has (and previous versions had too, I believe) >>> >>> > >Any pointers to documentation? > > No, just looked at the doc and didn't find anything, it's assumed implicitely at some locations though. DDL statement will create a Schema Modification lock (Sch-M), i.e. DDL statements pending in a transaction will lock a table exclusively. After commit or rollback, schema modification is committed or undone as expected, I verified this. Regards, Andreas
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: