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

Re: Table rewrites vs. pending AFTER triggers

From: "Gokulakannan Somasundaram" <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Andrew Dunstan" <adunstan(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Table rewrites vs. pending AFTER triggers
Date: 2008-01-03 07:04:00
Message-ID: 9362e74e0801022304k1fc31f3fwcc7b6cd4bd629d4a@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Is there why we allow DDLs inside a transaction and allow it to be rolled
back? If we commit the previous transaction, as soon as we encounter a DDL,
and commit the DDL too (without waiting for commit) will it be affecting
some use cases?

I actually mean to say that DDLs can be declared as self-committing. That
would get rid of these exceptions.

Am i missing something?

Thanks,
Gokul.

On Jan 3, 2008 12:02 AM, Andrew Dunstan <adunstan(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:

>
>
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-01-01 at 16:09 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Paranoia would
> >> suggest forbidding *any* form of ALTER TABLE when there are pending
> >> trigger events, but maybe that's unnecessarily strong.
> >>
> >
> > That works for me. Such a combination makes no sense, so banning it is
> > the right thing to do.
> >
> >
>
> +1. Doesn't make much sense to me either.
>
> cheers
>
> andrew
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>
>               http://archives.postgresql.org
>

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-01-03 07:14:49
Subject: Re: Table rewrites vs. pending AFTER triggers
Previous:From: Brian ModraDate: 2008-01-03 05:11:07
Subject: Re: Index performance

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