Re: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside a transaction block

> It seems everybody but Mike has forgotten the previous go-round on
> this issue.  I had in fact put in an ERROR for DROP TABLE inside a
> transaction block, and was beat up for it --- on the very reasonable
> grounds that it's useful to be able to drop a table and do some other
> things inside a transaction.  Although we can't support rollback-ability
> for such a transaction right now, we *do* support the atomic nature of
> such a transaction.  It's not reasonable to take away a capability that
> was available in prior releases just because it's got deficiencies.
> So the compromise was to issue a NOTICE instead of an ERROR.
> 
> BTW, we are not *that* far from being able to roll back a DROP TABLE.
> The only thing that's really needed is for everyone to take a deep
> breath and let go of the notion that table files ought to be named
> after the tables.  If we named table files after the OIDs of their
> tables, then rollback-able DROP or RENAME TABLE would be pretty
> straightforward.  If you don't recall why this is, consult the
> pghackers archives...

So what was the conclusion for 7.0?

>    Disallow DROP TABLE/DROP INDEX inside a transaction block

We should remove above from HISTORY, no?
--
Tatsuo Ishii