From: | "Gokulakannan Somasundaram" <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Andrew Dunstan" <adunstan(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Table rewrites vs. pending AFTER triggers |
Date: | 2008-01-03 07:04:00 |
Message-ID: | 9362e74e0801022304k1fc31f3fwcc7b6cd4bd629d4a@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Is there why we allow DDLs inside a transaction and allow it to be rolled
back? If we commit the previous transaction, as soon as we encounter a DDL,
and commit the DDL too (without waiting for commit) will it be affecting
some use cases?
I actually mean to say that DDLs can be declared as self-committing. That
would get rid of these exceptions.
Am i missing something?
Thanks,
Gokul.
On Jan 3, 2008 12:02 AM, Andrew Dunstan <adunstan(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
>
>
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-01-01 at 16:09 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Paranoia would
> >> suggest forbidding *any* form of ALTER TABLE when there are pending
> >> trigger events, but maybe that's unnecessarily strong.
> >>
> >
> > That works for me. Such a combination makes no sense, so banning it is
> > the right thing to do.
> >
> >
>
> +1. Doesn't make much sense to me either.
>
> cheers
>
> andrew
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-03 07:14:49 | Re: Table rewrites vs. pending AFTER triggers |
Previous Message | Brian Modra | 2008-01-03 05:11:07 | Re: Index performance |