Re: AW: [HACKERS] DROP TABLE inside a transaction block

On Mon, 6 Mar 2000, Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote:

> 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.

That still doesn't excuse the current behavior though.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut                  Sernanders väg 10:115
peter_e@gmx.net                   75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/            Sweden