Re: [GENERAL] drop/rename table and transactions

Mike Mascari wrote:
> 
> This is one of the few areas that I disagree with the development trend in
> PostgreSQL. Every release contains different bugs related to DDL statements in
> transactions. The developers appear to want to make them work (i.e., have the
> ability to rollback a DROP TABLE, ALTER TABLE ADD COLUMN, etc.). This, in my
> opinion, goes far above and beyond the call of duty for a RDBMS. Oracle issues
> an implicit COMMIT whenever a DDL statement is found. In fact, one could argue
> that those who are porting Oracle apps to PostgreSQL would assume,
> incorrectly, than a DROP TABLE in a transaction committed any work done
> previously.
> 
> I personally believe that PostgreSQL should do the same as Oracle and greatly
> simplify the implementation of DDL statements in the backed by issuing an
> implicit COMMIT....
> 
> Just my opinion, though

And I agreed with this.
But I would like to preserve ability to CREATE TABLE, mostly
because I think that SELECT ... INTO TABLE ... is very usefull
thing.

Vadim