Re: Big 7.1 open items

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Oliver Elphick" <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Big 7.1 open items
Date: 2000-06-14 15:36:20
Message-ID: 14752.960996980@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

"Oliver Elphick" <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> I suggest that DROP TABLE in a transaction should not be allowed.

I had actually made it do that for a short time early this year,
and was shouted down. On reflection I have to agree; it's too useful
to be able to do

begin;
drop table foo;
create table foo(new schema);
...
end;

You do indeed lose big if you suffer an error partway through, but
the answer to that is to fix our file naming conventions so that we
can support rollback of drop table.

Also note the complaints we've been getting about CREATE USER not
working inside a transaction block. That is a case where someone
(Peter IIRC) took the more hard-line approach of emitting an error
instead of a warning. I think it was not the right choice to make.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2000-06-14 16:21:24 Updated 7.1 items list
Previous Message Thomas Lockhart 2000-06-14 15:31:39 Developer's snapshot docs

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2000-06-14 16:35:44 Re: BeOS and IPC - try 999
Previous Message The Hermit Hacker 2000-06-14 14:47:15 Re: BeOS and IPC - try 999