Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction
Date
Msg-id 200204252125.g3PLPlx20356@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction  (Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com>)
Responses Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction  (Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com>)
Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction  ("Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
Marc is suggesting we may want to match Oracle somehow.

I just want to have our SET work on a sane manner.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> 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@michvhf.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
> ==========================================================================
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
> 
> http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
> 

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: What is wrong with hashed index usage?
Next
From: F Harvell
Date:
Subject: Re: non-standard escapes in string literals