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

Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside a transaction block

From: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us
Cc: mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com, peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside a transaction block
Date: 2000-03-07 08:06:43
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> It seems everybody but Mike has forgotten the previous go-round on
> this issue.  I had in fact put in an ERROR for DROP TABLE inside a
> transaction block, and was beat up for it --- on the very reasonable
> grounds that it's useful to be able to drop a table and do some other
> things inside a transaction.  Although we can't support rollback-ability
> for such a transaction right now, we *do* support the atomic nature of
> such a transaction.  It's not reasonable to take away a capability that
> was available in prior releases just because it's got deficiencies.
> So the compromise was to issue a NOTICE instead of an ERROR.
> BTW, we are not *that* far from being able to roll back a DROP TABLE.
> The only thing that's really needed is for everyone to take a deep
> breath and let go of the notion that table files ought to be named
> after the tables.  If we named table files after the OIDs of their
> tables, then rollback-able DROP or RENAME TABLE would be pretty
> straightforward.  If you don't recall why this is, consult the
> pghackers archives...

So what was the conclusion for 7.0?

>	Disallow DROP TABLE/DROP INDEX inside a transaction block

We should remove above from HISTORY, no?
Tatsuo Ishii

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-03-07 08:08:35
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Optimizer badness in 7.0 beta
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-03-07 07:53:49
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside a transaction block

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group