Is there why we allow DDLs inside a transaction and allow it to be rolled back? If we commit the previous transaction,
assoon as we encounter a DDL, and commit the DDL too (without waiting for commit) will it be affecting some use cases?
<br/><br />I actually mean to say that DDLs can be declared as self-committing. That would get rid of these
exceptions.<br/><br />Am i missing something?<br /><br />Thanks,<br />Gokul.<br /><br /><div class="gmail_quote">On Jan
3,2008 12:02 AM, Andrew Dunstan < <a href="mailto:adunstan@postgresql.org">adunstan@postgresql.org</a>> wrote:<br
/><blockquoteclass="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;
padding-left:1ex;"><div class="Ih2E3d"><br /><br />Simon Riggs wrote:<br />> On Tue, 2008-01-01 at 16:09 -0500, Tom
Lanewrote:<br />><br />><br />>> Paranoia would<br />>> suggest forbidding *any* form of ALTER TABLE
whenthere are pending<br />>> trigger events, but maybe that's unnecessarily strong. <br />>><br />><br
/>>That works for me. Such a combination makes no sense, so banning it is<br />> the right thing to do.<br
/>><br/>><br /><br /></div>+1. Doesn't make much sense to me either.<br /><br />cheers<br /><br />andrew<br /><br
/>---------------------------(endof broadcast)---------------------------<br />TIP 4: Have you searched our list
archives?<br/><br /> <a href="http://archives.postgresql.org"
target="_blank">http://archives.postgresql.org</a><br /></blockquote></div><br /><br clear="all" />