Thread: transactions
does any one know since when postgres supports transactions? thx
On Wednesday 02 Oct 2002 2:52 pm, luc neulens wrote: > does any one know since when postgres supports transactions? Since some time in the dark ages - pre v6 afaik, and probably long before that. The only reason I don't know beyond that is I've only been using it since v6. If you really want to know, I'd check the release notes in the Administrator's guide - they go back years. -- Richard Huxton
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, luc neulens wrote: > does any one know since when postgres supports transactions? For as long as I've been using it (since 6.5.x) and way before that I believe. Which reminds me, when Oracle was responding to the .org using postgresql issue they said that Postgresql doesn't support transactions. Did they even bother looking at the docs for Postgresql before spewing their lame crap??? Probably not.
scott.marlowe wrote: > On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, luc neulens wrote: > > > does any one know since when postgres supports transactions? > > For as long as I've been using it (since 6.5.x) and way before that I > believe. > > Which reminds me, when Oracle was responding to the .org using postgresql > issue they said that Postgresql doesn't support transactions. Did they > even bother looking at the docs for Postgresql before spewing their lame > crap??? Probably not. They confused us with MySQL in that paragraph. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
"scott.marlowe" <scott.marlowe@ihs.com> writes: > On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, luc neulens wrote: >> does any one know since when postgres supports transactions? > For as long as I've been using it (since 6.5.x) and way before that I > believe. There is certainly transaction support in Postgres 4.2, the last Berkeley release before Yu and Chen converted it from PostQUEL to SQL language. I don't have any older versions to look at, but I would assume that it was designed into Postgres from the beginning (~ 1986). There's a short project history in the docs: http://www.ca.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/7.2/postgres/history.html regards, tom lane
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 10:06:38AM -0600, scott.marlowe wrote:
> Which reminds me, when Oracle was responding to the .org using postgresql
> issue they said that Postgresql doesn't support transactions. Did they
> even bother looking at the docs for Postgresql before spewing their lame
> crap??? Probably not.
To be fair, in the Oracle posting, they actually said PostgreSQL
lacked the "transactional features" of "any commercial enterprise
database". While that is presumably something beyond just
"transactions", I was completely unclear about what it was supposed
actually to be. Anyone got any ideas?
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x110
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 10:06:38AM -0600, scott.marlowe wrote: > > > Which reminds me, when Oracle was responding to the .org using postgresql > > issue they said that Postgresql doesn't support transactions. Did they > > even bother looking at the docs for Postgresql before spewing their lame > > crap??? Probably not. > > To be fair, in the Oracle posting, they actually said PostgreSQL > lacked the "transactional features" of "any commercial enterprise > database". While that is presumably something beyond just > "transactions", I was completely unclear about what it was supposed > actually to be. Anyone got any ideas? Yeah, they're pissed off that they weren't chosen. Vince. -- http://www.meanstreamradio.com http://www.unknown-artists.com Internet radio: It's not file sharing, it's just radio!
Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 10:06:38AM -0600, scott.marlowe wrote: > > > Which reminds me, when Oracle was responding to the .org using postgresql > > issue they said that Postgresql doesn't support transactions. Did they > > even bother looking at the docs for Postgresql before spewing their lame > > crap??? Probably not. > > To be fair, in the Oracle posting, they actually said PostgreSQL > lacked the "transactional features" of "any commercial enterprise > database". While that is presumably something beyond just > "transactions", I was completely unclear about what it was supposed > actually to be. Anyone got any ideas? They were confusing us with MySQL. It was a marketing guy. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
On Wed, 2002-10-16 at 12:47, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 10:06:38AM -0600, scott.marlowe wrote: > > > > > Which reminds me, when Oracle was responding to the .org using postgresql > > > issue they said that Postgresql doesn't support transactions. Did they > > > even bother looking at the docs for Postgresql before spewing their lame > > > crap??? Probably not. > > > > To be fair, in the Oracle posting, they actually said PostgreSQL > > lacked the "transactional features" of "any commercial enterprise > > database". While that is presumably something beyond just > > "transactions", I was completely unclear about what it was supposed > > actually to be. Anyone got any ideas? > > They were confusing us with MySQL. It was a marketing guy. > s/guy/ploy Robert Treat
There is an interview with Larry Ellison in the November issue of Linux Magazine. It appears that he considers MySQL andPostgreSQL irrelivant. How does that saying go... First they ignore you, Then they laugh at you, ..., then you win;) > -----Original Message----- > From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:pgman@candle.pha.pa.us] > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 11:47 AM > To: Andrew Sullivan > Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] transactions > > > Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 10:06:38AM -0600, scott.marlowe wrote: > > > > > Which reminds me, when Oracle was responding to the .org > using postgresql > > > issue they said that Postgresql doesn't support > transactions. Did they > > > even bother looking at the docs for Postgresql before > spewing their lame > > > crap??? Probably not. > > > > To be fair, in the Oracle posting, they actually said PostgreSQL > > lacked the "transactional features" of "any commercial enterprise > > database". While that is presumably something beyond just > > "transactions", I was completely unclear about what it was supposed > > actually to be. Anyone got any ideas? > > They were confusing us with MySQL. It was a marketing guy. > > -- > Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us > pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 > + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road > + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, > Pennsylvania 19073 > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly >
The only thing I can think of is the inability to archive and replay transactions but this is coming in 7.4. "Andrew Sullivan" <andrew@libertyrms.info> wrote in message news:20021016115346.D8509@mail.libertyrms.com... > On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 10:06:38AM -0600, scott.marlowe wrote: > > > Which reminds me, when Oracle was responding to the .org using postgresql > > issue they said that Postgresql doesn't support transactions. Did they > > even bother looking at the docs for Postgresql before spewing their lame > > crap??? Probably not. > > To be fair, in the Oracle posting, they actually said PostgreSQL > lacked the "transactional features" of "any commercial enterprise > database". While that is presumably something beyond just > "transactions", I was completely unclear about what it was supposed > actually to be. Anyone got any ideas? > > A > > -- > ---- > Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street > Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada > <andrew@libertyrms.info> M2P 2A8 > +1 416 646 3304 x110 > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org
In article <200210161647.g9GGl4t08435@candle.pha.pa.us>, pgman@candle.pha.pa.us (Bruce Momjian) writes: >> To be fair, in the Oracle posting, they actually said PostgreSQL >> lacked the "transactional features" of "any commercial enterprise >> database". While that is presumably something beyond just >> "transactions", I was completely unclear about what it was supposed >> actually to be. Anyone got any ideas? > They were confusing us with MySQL. It was a marketing guy. ... who didn't know that MySQL _does_ support transactions :-)
On 17 Oct 2002 at 11:47, Harald Fuchs wrote: > In article <200210161647.g9GGl4t08435@candle.pha.pa.us>, > pgman@candle.pha.pa.us (Bruce Momjian) writes: > > >> To be fair, in the Oracle posting, they actually said PostgreSQL > >> lacked the "transactional features" of "any commercial enterprise > >> database". While that is presumably something beyond just > >> "transactions", I was completely unclear about what it was supposed > >> actually to be. Anyone got any ideas? > > > They were confusing us with MySQL. It was a marketing guy. > > ... who didn't know that MySQL _does_ support transactions :-) So innodb is default now? Bye Shridhar -- Male, n.: A member of the unconsidered, or negligible sex. The male of the human race is commonly known to the female as Mere Man. The genus has two varieties: good providers and bad providers. -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
> > > They were confusing us with MySQL. It was a marketing guy. > > > > ... who didn't know that MySQL _does_ support transactions :-) > > So innodb is default now? Not when I built 3.23.52 a month or two ago. It wasn't even included in installation. I'm tempted to add it, but I don't know if my eventual hosting environment will include it, so I'm hesitant to do so. Greg
On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Gregory Wood wrote: > > > > They were confusing us with MySQL. It was a marketing guy. > > > > > > ... who didn't know that MySQL _does_ support transactions :-) > > > > So innodb is default now? > > Not when I built 3.23.52 a month or two ago. It wasn't even included in > installation. I'm tempted to add it, but I don't know if my eventual hosting > environment will include it, so I'm hesitant to do so. And don't forget, hot backups aren't free, they're either $400 a year or $1000 perpetual license, as per: http://www.innodb.com/hotbackup.html so, you can pay $1,000 to hot backup a database that has transactions bolted onto the side, or $0.00 for hot backups for a database that was built as a transactional engine from day one.