| From: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Roussel <pgsql-general(at)diroussel(dot)xsmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org>, John Browne <jkbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Table modifications with dependent views - best |
| Date: | 2005-04-22 15:27:22 |
| Message-ID: | 20050422152722.GB21847@wolff.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 11:34:29 +0100,
David Roussel <pgsql-general(at)diroussel(dot)xsmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > I usually put DDL statements in a transaction, for a couple of
> > reasons: so that a mistake doesn't leave me with half-done work
> > (any error will cause the entire transaction to roll back), and to
> > make the changes atomic for the benefit of other transactions.
>
> Can you do that in postgres? Will it really make the DDL atomic?
I wasn't able to find where this is spelled out in the documentation,
but I believe all DDL commands except DROP DATABASE can be rolled back now.
For older versions of Postgres there were more DDL statements that were not
transaction safe.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Wheeler | 2005-04-22 15:28:46 | Re: Multiple RULES on Views |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2005-04-22 15:15:01 | Re: Table Partition |