| From: | "Gokulakannan Somasundaram" <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Andrew Dunstan" <adunstan(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Table rewrites vs. pending AFTER triggers |
| Date: | 2008-01-03 07:38:47 |
| Message-ID: | 9362e74e0801022338j436b0056r2a421e7f38b32fa6@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jan 3, 2008 12:44 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Gokulakannan Somasundaram" <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I actually mean to say that DDLs can be declared as self-committing.
>
> Egad, an Oracle lover in our midst.
:). True, its an impact of working more with Oracle. I made the suggestion
here, because it might reduce some if conditions.
>
>
> Most of us think that roll-back-able DDL is one of the best features of
> Postgres, and certainly one of our best selling points vis-a-vis Oracle.
> Don't expect us to give it up.
Can you please explain, any specific use-case where DDLs are necessary
within a transaction?
--
Thanks,
Gokul.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2008-01-03 08:11:00 | Re: Table rewrites vs. pending AFTER triggers |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-03 07:14:49 | Re: Table rewrites vs. pending AFTER triggers |