transactions

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

There is an interview with Larry Ellison in the November issue of Linux Magazine. It appears that he considers MySQL and PostgreSQL irrelivant.
How does that saying go... First they ignore you, Then they laugh at you, ..., then you win;)

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

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

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.