Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Table rewrites vs. pending AFTER triggers

From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Table rewrites vs. pending AFTER triggers
Date: 2008-06-02 13:58:02
Message-ID: 20080602135801.GC57859@commandprompt.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 11:51:29PM -0700, Robert Hodges wrote:

> If you are saying that DDL should be auto-commit, yes, this really does
> limit some use cases.

I agree.  Transactional DDL is a big feature I'd hate to see go away.
Oracle DBAs I know look with envy on this feature of Postgres.
 
> with the database that causes a command to fail.  SLONY is an example of
> such a generator where transactional DDL would be helpful though I donĀ¹t
> know for a fact that SLONY uses it.  

It sort of does, in that all work under Slony is performed in a
transaction.  But Slony attempts to isolate the DDL in a sync at just
the right point, and not mix schema and data changes in syncs.

Still, one of the important best practices in preparing your DDL
changing scripts for Slony is to try running that script inside a
transaction (and then rolling back) on every node, to ensure that it
will in fact work on every node.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs(at)commandprompt(dot)com
+1 503 667 4564 x104
http://www.commandprompt.com/

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Teodor SigaevDate: 2008-06-02 14:10:21
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Fragments in tsearch2 headline
Previous:From: Andrew SullivanDate: 2008-06-02 13:51:39
Subject: Re: Case-Insensitve Text Comparison

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group