Zeugswetter Andreas SEV wrote:
> > > RDBMS. Oracle issues
> > > an implicit COMMIT whenever a DDL statement is found.
> > And I agreed with this.
> And I strongly disagree.
> This sounds like pushing the flush button in the toilet,
> and instead of the toilet flushing you get a shower.
> How could anybody come to the idea that a DDL statement
> also does a commit work if inside a transaction ?
> Now this sound so absurd, that I even doubt Oracle would do this.
Standard says (4.41 SQL-transactions):
It is implementation-defined whether or not the non-dynamic or
dynamic execution of an SQL-data statement or the execution of
an <SQL dynamic data statement> is permitted to occur within the
same SQL-transaction as the non-dynamic or dynamic execution of
an SQL-schema statement. If it does occur, then the effect on any
So, you see that this idea came not to Oracle only...
I don't object against DDLs inside BEGIN/END.
I just mean that it's not required by standard.
If someone is ready to fix this area - welcome.
P.S. Is DROP TABLE rollback-able in Informix, Andreas?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Zeugswetter Andreas SEV||Date: 1999-11-26 10:29:44|
|Subject: AW: AW: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] drop/rename table and transactions|
|Previous:||From: Zeugswetter Andreas SEV||Date: 1999-11-26 09:38:15|
|Subject: AW: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] drop/rename table and transactions|