From: | Vadim Mikheev <vadim(at)krs(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com> |
Cc: | Lincoln Yeoh <lylyeoh(at)mecomb(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, PostgreSQL Developers List <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] drop/rename table and transactions |
Date: | 1999-11-26 05:46:33 |
Message-ID: | 383E1EB9.520B5154@krs.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Mike Mascari wrote:
>
> This is one of the few areas that I disagree with the development trend in
> PostgreSQL. Every release contains different bugs related to DDL statements in
> transactions. The developers appear to want to make them work (i.e., have the
> ability to rollback a DROP TABLE, ALTER TABLE ADD COLUMN, etc.). This, in my
> opinion, goes far above and beyond the call of duty for a RDBMS. Oracle issues
> an implicit COMMIT whenever a DDL statement is found. In fact, one could argue
> that those who are porting Oracle apps to PostgreSQL would assume,
> incorrectly, than a DROP TABLE in a transaction committed any work done
> previously.
>
> I personally believe that PostgreSQL should do the same as Oracle and greatly
> simplify the implementation of DDL statements in the backed by issuing an
> implicit COMMIT....
>
> Just my opinion, though
And I agreed with this.
But I would like to preserve ability to CREATE TABLE, mostly
because I think that SELECT ... INTO TABLE ... is very usefull
thing.
Vadim
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Birch | 1999-11-26 06:42:09 | Re: [GENERAL] Table names case sensitive? |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-11-26 04:36:42 | Re: [GENERAL] A script which drops a column |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 1999-11-26 05:55:54 | Re: [HACKERS] Concurrent VACUUM: first results |
Previous Message | Vadim Mikheev | 1999-11-26 05:32:31 | Re: [HACKERS] Concurrent VACUUM: first results |