> It seems everybody but Mike has forgotten the previous go-round on
> this issue. I had in fact put in an ERROR for DROP TABLE inside a
> transaction block, and was beat up for it --- on the very reasonable
> grounds that it's useful to be able to drop a table and do some other
> things inside a transaction. Although we can't support rollback-ability
> for such a transaction right now, we *do* support the atomic nature of
> such a transaction. It's not reasonable to take away a capability that
> was available in prior releases just because it's got deficiencies.
> So the compromise was to issue a NOTICE instead of an ERROR.
> BTW, we are not *that* far from being able to roll back a DROP TABLE.
> The only thing that's really needed is for everyone to take a deep
> breath and let go of the notion that table files ought to be named
> after the tables. If we named table files after the OIDs of their
> tables, then rollback-able DROP or RENAME TABLE would be pretty
> straightforward. If you don't recall why this is, consult the
> pghackers archives...
So what was the conclusion for 7.0?
> Disallow DROP TABLE/DROP INDEX inside a transaction block
We should remove above from HISTORY, no?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2000-03-07 08:08:35|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Optimizer badness in 7.0 beta |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2000-03-07 07:53:49|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside a transaction block |