Re: autocommit vs TRUNCATE et al
От
Joe Conway
Тема
Re: autocommit vs TRUNCATE et al
Дата
Msg-id
3DB4E156.8090701@joeconway.com
Список
Дерево обсуждения
Re: autocommit vs TRUNCATE et al "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at>
Tom Lane wrote:> We can go with the auto-COMMIT idea for statements that are invoked at> the outer interactive level, but that doesn't work for stuff invoked> inside a function. I think we need to forbid these statements inside> functions, too. We already have that for VACUUM, because of its> internal commits causing problems for functions, but we'll need to> extend it to all of them.>> Just FYI, the statements involved are> VACUUM> TRUNCATE TABLE> CREATE/DROP DATABASE I just noticed that this afternoon's changes cause dblink's regression test to fail due to: CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION conditional_drop() [...] IF FOUND THEN DROP DATABASE regression_slave; END IF; [...] ' LANGUAGE 'plpgsql'; SELECT conditional_drop(); I'm wondering what is the best alternative? Should we simply do a "DROP DATABASE regression_slave;" and have the expected results include the 'database "regression_slave" does not exist'? In this case there would be an expected failure whenever the regression test was run more than once. Joe
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления