Re: Two features left - add - Mailing list pgsql-general
From | snpe |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Two features left - add |
Date | |
Msg-id | 200211281415.17303.snpe@snpe.co.yu Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Two features left (Jon Swinth <jswinth@atomicpc.com>) |
List | pgsql-general |
Add - cursor out of a transaction - distributed database (two phase commit) - replication regards Haris Peco On Wednesday 27 November 2002 05:13 pm, Jon Swinth wrote: > MS-SQLI have been using PostgreSQL on one of my projects since the > beginning of the year now. Before that I used Oracle and . I am very > impressed with the stability, speed, and usefulness PostgreSQL and think > the 7.2.3 release will be grand. PostgreSQL wins out over the other open > source DBs because it has those basic features needed for a fully formed > data model such as foreign keys, transactions, and the speed to go with > them. PostgreSQL is on the verge of winning big against closed source as > well. What is standing in the way, in my opinion, is two features. I came > to this conclusion after thinking about all the previous projects I have > been involved with and how PostgreSQL could be used in place of the closed > source DB in 90% of them with the following: > > Read locks for Foreign Key references > SQL exception should not void a transaction > > Based on reading the email list for the past 8 months, others have voiced > these issues as well. Some would say that replication and/or failover > should also be on the list. However, I think interaction within the DB is > more important as there is no work around in many cases. > > As many of you know, PostgreSQL takes a write lock on a referenced foreign > key record when you update or lock a record in a transaction. This results > in a great many delays and deadlocks on a high volume system that uses > foreign keys. Some would say to just not use foreign keys and make the > application keep things straight. Foreign keys are one of the things that > attracts people to PostgreSQL, why would you want to tell them not to use > them. Also, there are a lot of existing applications out there that would > port themselves to use PostgreSQL but not if they have to re-write the way > their software works. It is also not a safe assumption that the > application will be the only thing accessing the DB. DBAs make mistakes > too, and foreign keys often catch them. I have made inquires into how much > it would cost to make this feature a reality to see if I could get a > customer to finance it but have not received a response. > > The other feature is to allow transactions to continue without being forced > to rollback when a SQL exception occurs. In many applications, a SQL > exception is handled and an appropriate alternative generated so the > transaction goes on. PostgreSQL does not support this and errors on every > call made in the same transaction before calling rollback. Some people are > willing and able to adjust there application code to handle this. Many > people have long running transactions where this is not easily accomplished > or are using a pre-existing application that they can't change. > > The point of this email is that I would like to be able to profess the joys > and greatness of PostgreSQL to all my customers and whom ever else will > listen. With these features I could do that easily. > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)
pgsql-general by date: