Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > Yes, let's find out what the others do. I don't see DROP TABLE
> > rollbacking as totally different. How is it different from SET?
> SET currently has an "accepted behaviour" with other DBMSs, or, at least,
> with Oracle, and that is to ignore the rollback ...
> DROP TABLE also had an "accepted behaviour", and that was to leave it
> DROPed, so "oops, I screwed up and just lost a complete table as a
> result", which, IMHO, isn't particularly good ...
> NOTE that I *do* think that #1 is what *should* happen, but there should
> be some way of turning off that behaviour so that we don't screw up ppl
> expecting "Oracles behaviour" ... I just think that implementing #1
> without the 'switch' is implementing a half-measure that is gonna come
> back and bite us ...
Yes, I understand, and the logical place would be GUC. However, if we
add every option someone would ever want to GUC, the number of options
would be huge.
We currently have a problem doing #2. My suggestion is that we go to #1
and wait to see if anyone actually asks for the option of choosing #3.
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Curt Sampson||Date: 2002-04-26 05:09:23|
|Subject: Re: Block size: 8K or 16K?|
|Previous:||From: Lincoln Yeoh||Date: 2002-04-26 03:48:49|
|Subject: Re: Vote totals for SET in aborted transaction|