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

From Greg Stark
Subject Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Need concrete "Why Postgres not MySQL"
Date
Msg-id 871xvfjgea.fsf@stark.dyndns.tv
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Need concrete "Why Postgres not MySQL"  (Andreas Pflug <pgadmin@pse-consulting.de>)
Responses Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Need concrete "Why Postgres not MySQL"
Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Need concrete "Why Postgres not MySQL"
List 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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: Can't find thread on Linux memory overcommit
Next
From: Jon Jensen
Date:
Subject: Re: Can't find thread on Linux memory overcommit