| From: | "Jasbinder Singh Bali" <jsbali(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Michael Glaesemann" <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Harpreet Dhaliwal" <harpreet(dot)dhaliwal01(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Alexander Staubo" <alex(at)purefiction(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Transactional DDL |
| Date: | 2007-06-02 18:35:58 |
| Message-ID: | a47902760706021135w45934546mdf4d583f3980a946@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 6/2/07, Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net> wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 2, 2007, at 11:08 , Harpreet Dhaliwal wrote:
>
> > Whats so novel about postgresql here?
> > This would happen in any RDBMS. right?
> > You induced divide by zero exception that crashed the whole
> > transaction and it did not create the table bar?
>
> [Please don't top-post. It makes the discussion hard to follow.]
>
> I used the divide by zero to raise an error to show that both the
> CREATE TABLE and the INSERT were rolled back when the transaction
> failed. If there's another definition of transactional DDL, I'd like
> to know what it is.
>
> Michael Glaesemann
> grzm seespotcode net
This is what happens in every RDBMS. Whats so special about postgres then?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Harpreet Dhaliwal | 2007-06-02 18:37:32 | Re: Transactional DDL |
| Previous Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2007-06-02 18:35:11 | Re: One last Slony question (was Re: Slightly OT.) |