> > Yes, that was also the general consensus on the list. No statement is
> > ever going to do an implicit commit of previous statements.
>
> I can understand that, but one of these days I hope we can offer the SQL
> semantics of transactions where you don't require a BEGIN.
> (*Optional*,people.) In that case you have to do *something* about
> non-rollbackable DDL (face it, there's always going to be one). Doing what
> Oracle does is certainly not the *worst* one could do. Again, optional.
Imho it *is* the worst one can do.
The only also bad, but acceptable solutions to me would be:
1. disallow this DDL if there is any open DML in this tx,( allow it, if only select or DDL statements since tx open,
anddo
the implicit commit)
2. handle this DDL outside any transaction scope even if a tx is open
Implicitly committing previous DML with a DDL statement is imho out of
discussion.
Not in the scope of this discussion is imho the "truncate" command,
since it is 1. not SQL92, 2. per definition a non rollbackable statement
and 3. probably rather a DML statement.
> That still doesn't excuse the current behavior though.
Agreed
Andreas