Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] drop/rename table and transactions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Lamar Owen
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] drop/rename table and transactions
Date
Msg-id 99112616564608.00541@lorc.wgcr.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] drop/rename table and transactions  ("Mike Mascari" <mascarm@mascari.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 26 Nov 1999, Mike Mascari wrote:
> The DCOM remark was just a joke ;-). My remark concerning ORACLE was in
> response to Andreas' comment that implicit COMMITs of DDL statements was
> absurd. I wanted to simply point out that, since ORACLE has 70% market
> share,

I did not see the response to Andreas, nor did I see Andreas' assertion that it
was absurd.  My apologies.

> counterparts and to be able to "undo" filesystem operations. That, it seems
> to
> me, will be a major undertaking and not going to happen any time soon...

Yes, that is true.  As long as the storage manager relies on the filesystem for
table names, this will be a problem, unless filesystem deletions are delayed
until COMMIT, and filesystem creates are undone at a ROLLBACK.

--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Mike Mascari"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] drop/rename table and transactions
Next
From: "Hiroshi Inoue"
Date:
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Concurrent VACUUM: first results