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

• Re: Table rewrites vs. pending AFTER triggers at 2008-01-02 18:32:55 from Andrew Dunstan

Responses

• Re: Table rewrites vs. pending AFTER triggers at 2008-01-03 07:14:49 from Tom Lane
• Re: Table rewrites vs. pending AFTER triggers at 2008-06-02 06:51:29 from Robert Hodges

pgsql-hackers by date

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