Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Need concrete "Why Postgres not MySQL"
От | Greg Stark |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Need concrete "Why Postgres not MySQL" |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 871xvfjgea.fsf@stark.dyndns.tv обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Need concrete "Why Postgres not MySQL" (Andreas Pflug <pgadmin@pse-consulting.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Need concrete "Why Postgres not MySQL"
Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Need concrete "Why Postgres not MySQL" |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
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) In Oracle DDL (including truncate!) was special and wasn't in a transaction. I always just assumed that was just the way it had to be. -- greg
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: