From: | Vadim Mikheev <vadim(at)krs(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Zeugswetter Andreas SEV <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
Cc: | "'PostgreSQL Developers List'" <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: AW: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] drop/rename table and transactions |
Date: | 1999-11-26 10:12:01 |
Message-ID: | 383E5CF1.10B7B3BE@krs.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Zeugswetter Andreas SEV wrote:
>
> > > RDBMS. Oracle issues
> > > an implicit COMMIT whenever a DDL statement is found.
> >
> > And I agreed with this.
>
> And I strongly disagree.
> This sounds like pushing the flush button in the toilet,
> and instead of the toilet flushing you get a shower.
>
> How could anybody come to the idea that a DDL statement
> also does a commit work if inside a transaction ?
>
> Now this sound so absurd, that I even doubt Oracle would do this.
Standard says (4.41 SQL-transactions):
It is implementation-defined whether or not the non-dynamic or
dynamic execution of an SQL-data statement or the execution of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
an <SQL dynamic data statement> is permitted to occur within the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
same SQL-transaction as the non-dynamic or dynamic execution of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
an SQL-schema statement. If it does occur, then the effect on any
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So, you see that this idea came not to Oracle only...
I don't object against DDLs inside BEGIN/END.
I just mean that it's not required by standard.
If someone is ready to fix this area - welcome.
Vadim
P.S. Is DROP TABLE rollback-able in Informix, Andreas?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SEV | 1999-11-26 10:29:44 | AW: AW: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] drop/rename table and transaction s |
Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SEV | 1999-11-26 09:38:15 | AW: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] drop/rename table and transactions |