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
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2000-03-06 10:10:54|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside a transaction block|
|Previous:||From: Jerome ALET||Date: 2000-03-06 09:12:52|
|Subject: Re: [BUGS] grant/revoke bug with delete/update|