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

Re: AW: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside a transaction block

From: Peter Eisentraut <e99re41(at)DoCS(dot)UU(dot)SE>
To: Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>
Cc: "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: AW: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside a transaction block
Date: 2000-03-06 10:08:04
Message-ID: Pine.GSO.4.02A.10003061104500.19000-100000@Svan.DoCS.UU.SE (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 6 Mar 2000, Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote:

> Yes, that was also the general consensus on the list. No statement is
> ever going to do an implicit commit of previous statements.

I can understand that, but one of these days I hope we can offer the SQL
semantics of transactions where you don't require a BEGIN. (*Optional*,
people.) In that case you have to do *something* about non-rollbackable
DDL (face it, there's always going to be one). Doing what Oracle does is
certainly not the *worst* one could do. Again, optional.

That still doesn't excuse the current behavior though.

Peter Eisentraut                  Sernanders väg 10:115
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net                   75262 Uppsala            Sweden

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2000-03-06 10:10:54
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside a transaction block
Previous:From: Jerome ALETDate: 2000-03-06 09:12:52
Subject: Re: [BUGS] grant/revoke bug with delete/update

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