Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > My guess is that we should implement #1 and see what feedback we get in > > 7.3. > > IMHO, it hasn't been thought out well enough to be implemented yet ... the > options have been, but which to implement haven't ... right now, #1 is > proposing to implement something that goes against what *at least* one of > DBMS does ... so now you have programmers coming from that environment > expecting one thing to happen, when a totally different thing results ...
But, they don't expect our current behavior either (which is really weird). At least I haven't seen anyone complaining about our current weird behavior, and we are improving it, at least as our users request it. In fact, Oracle doesn't implement rollback for DROP TABLE, and we clearly wanted that feature, so do we ignore rollback for SET too? I guess I don't see it as a killer if we can do better than Oracle, or at least most of our users (including you) think it is better than Oracle. If someone wants Oracle behavior after we do #1, we can add it, right? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
