Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Need concrete "Why Postgres not MySQL" - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andreas Pflug
Subject Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Need concrete "Why Postgres not MySQL"
Date
Msg-id 3F44EDA8.1040807@pse-consulting.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Need concrete "Why Postgres not MySQL"  ("Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in>)
List 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




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Manfred Koizar
Date:
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Need concrete "Why Postgres not MySQL" bullet list
Next
From: Thomas Swan
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL 7.4 Beta 1 + SSL + Cygwin