Jan Wieck wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Marc is suggesting we may want to match Oracle somehow. > > > > > > > > I just want to have our SET work on a sane manner. > > > > > > Myself, I wonder why Oracle went the route they went ... does anyone have > > > access to a Sybase / Informix system, to confirm how they do it? Is > > > Oracle the 'odd man out', or are we going to be that? *Adding* something > > > (ie. DROP TABLE rollbacks) that nobody appears to have is one thing ... > > > but changing the behaviour is a totally different ... > > > > Yes, let's find out what the others do. I don't see DROP TABLE > > rollbacking as totally different. How is it different from SET? > > Man, you should know that our transactions are truly all or > nothing. If you discard a transaction, the stamps xmin and > xmax are ignored. This is a fundamental feature of Postgres, > and if you're half through a utility command when you ERROR > out, it guarantees consistency of the catalog. And now you > want us to violate this concept for compatibility to Oracle's > misbehaviour? No, thanks!
So you do see a difference between SET and DROP TABLE because the second is a utility command. OK, I'll buy that, but my point was different. My point was that we don't match Oracle for DROP TABLE, so why is matching for SET so important? -- 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 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
