Re: Transactional DDL, but not Serializable

Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> Sorry, that obviously didn't come across clearly (I think I've just been
> talking to Kevin far too much).

> I'm not interested in making them serializable. I'd like to not have
> tables randomly appear during a serializable transaction.

Well, basically, you can't have that. Example: you have an existing
table with primary key, and while you're in the middle of doing some
long transaction, somebody else creates a table with a foreign-key
reference to the one you're about to do a delete from. Being
serializable does not excuse you from the obligation to check for
FK violations in that "invisible" table. It might be acceptable to
fail entirely, but not to act as though the table isn't there.

regards, tom lane