Re: AW: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] drop/rename table and transactions

Zeugswetter Andreas SEV wrote:
> 
> > >  RDBMS. Oracle issues
> > > an implicit COMMIT whenever a DDL statement is found.
> >
> > And I agreed with this.
> 
> And I strongly disagree.
> This sounds like pushing the flush button in the toilet,
> and instead of the toilet flushing you get a shower.
> 
> How could anybody come to the idea that a DDL statement
> also does a commit work if inside a transaction ?
> 
> Now this sound so absurd, that I even doubt Oracle would do this.

Standard says (4.41  SQL-transactions):
        It is implementation-defined whether or not the non-dynamic or        dynamic execution of an SQL-data
statementor the execution of                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^        an <SQL dynamic data statement>
ispermitted to occur within the                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^        same
SQL-transactionas the non-dynamic or dynamic execution of        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^        an SQL-schema
statement.If it does occur, then the effect on any        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 

So, you see that this idea came not to Oracle only...

I don't object against DDLs inside BEGIN/END.
I just mean that it's not required by standard.
If someone is ready to fix this area - welcome.

Vadim
P.S. Is DROP TABLE rollback-able in Informix, Andreas?