From: | "Gokulakannan Somasundaram" <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Martijn van Oosterhout" <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Andrew Dunstan" <adunstan(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Table rewrites vs. pending AFTER triggers |
Date: | 2008-01-03 10:32:13 |
Message-ID: | 9362e74e0801030232r1a5781a1l1d20c83a0da02a1@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jan 3, 2008 3:53 PM, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 01:08:47PM +0530, Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote:
> > Can you please explain, any specific use-case where DDLs are necessary
> > within a transaction?
>
> I don't think they are ever necessary, they're just very very nice. For
> example:
>
> - You want a new column to appear populated on a table atomically. You
> do a BEGIN; add column; update set column=foo; add foreign key; COMMIT
> - Installation of external modules can be done atomically, so you don't
> end up with half installed contrib modules.
> - Principle of Least Surprise. Automatic commit for any reason seems
> wrong.
> - Temporarily disabling triggers/indexes/constraints, if the system
> aborts/crashes, the triggers are reinstated automatically.
> - Just general niceity of being able to test schema changes without
> immediatly changing the system.
>
> There are many more...
Thanks.. it looks like a good feature...
Gokul.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Albe Laurenz | 2008-01-03 10:55:40 | Re: Table rewrites vs. pending AFTER triggers |
Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2008-01-03 10:23:31 | Re: Table rewrites vs. pending AFTER triggers |