| From: | Peter Eisentraut <e99re41(at)DoCS(dot)UU(dot)SE> |
|---|---|
| To: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
| Cc: | "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: AW: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside a transaction block |
| Date: | 2000-03-06 10:08:04 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.GSO.4.02A.10003061104500.19000-100000@Svan.DoCS.UU.SE |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 6 Mar 2000, Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote:
> Yes, that was also the general consensus on the list. No statement is
> ever going to do an implicit commit of previous statements.
I can understand that, but one of these days I hope we can offer the SQL
semantics of transactions where you don't require a BEGIN. (*Optional*,
people.) In that case you have to do *something* about non-rollbackable
DDL (face it, there's always going to be one). Doing what Oracle does is
certainly not the *worst* one could do. Again, optional.
That still doesn't excuse the current behavior though.
--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-03-06 10:10:54 | Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside a transaction block |
| Previous Message | Jerome ALET | 2000-03-06 09:12:52 | Re: [BUGS] grant/revoke bug with delete/update |