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 don¹t
> 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.
+1 503 667 4564 x104
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Teodor Sigaev||Date: 2008-06-02 14:10:21|
|Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Fragments in tsearch2 headline|
|Previous:||From: Andrew Sullivan||Date: 2008-06-02 13:51:39|
|Subject: Re: Case-Insensitve Text Comparison|