On 3/12/19 3:19 PM, Christopher Browne wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 12:53, Benedict Holland
> <benedict.m.holland@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am not saying it is not well documented. I am saying that it isn't ACID compliant, which it isn't, as they
document.
> I *love* the notion of being able to roll back DDL, but it has long
> been common for DDL to *not* be transactional even with some of the
> Big Expensive Databases (such as the one whose name begins with an
> "O").
>
> Up until version 11.something, "Big O" apparently did NOT have this,
> and MS SQL Server didn't in version 2008.
This has always shocked me. DEC's relational and CODASYL dbms products (now
owned by Big O, and still being updated) has had transactional DDL for 35 years.
I wouldn't be surprised if their PDP11 predecessors had it 40 years ago.
--
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.
