Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside transaction block

My guess is that your new open routines with locking have fixed this.

> Pursuant to a phone conversation I had with Bruce, I added code this
> morning to reject DROP TABLE or DROP INDEX inside a transaction block;
> that is, you can't do BEGIN; DROP TABLE foo; END anymore. The reason
> for rejecting this case is that we do the wrong thing if the transaction
> is later aborted. Following BEGIN; DROP TABLE foo; ABORT, the system
> tables will claim that foo is still valid (since the changes to them
> were never committed) but we've already unlinked foo's physical file,
> and we can't get it back. Solution: only allow DROP TABLE outside
> BEGIN, so that the user can't try to change his mind later.
>
> However, on second thought I wonder if this cure is worse than the
> disease. Will it be unreasonably hard to drop tables using client
> interfaces that like to wrap everything in BEGIN/END? Plugging an
> obscure hole might not be worth that.
>
> A possible compromise is not to error out, but just to issue a NOTICE
> along the lines of "DROP TABLE is not undoable, so don't even think of
> trying to abort now..."
>
> (Of course, what would be really nice is if it just worked, but I don't
> see any way to make that happen without major changes. Simply
> postponing the unlink to end of transaction isn't workable; consider
> BEGIN; DROP TABLE foo; CREATE TABLE foo; ...)
>
> Any thoughts? Will there indeed be a problem with JDBC or ODBC if we
> leave this error check in place?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ************
>
>

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026