Re: Why Oracle does not allow rollback of DDL statements?
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:37:00 -0500
Bob Jones wrote:
>> That's the first I hear about that. Can you point to any docs explaining
>> the behavior you imply? I'm also told that SQL Server (like DB2) has
>> transactional DDL. Even TRUNCATE table is transactional.
> > Transactional TRUNCATE? Why not use DELETE? >
>> Oracle has to deal with that today!
>> No matter how you call it the CREATE statement still needs to be ATMIC.
>> And atomic implies that there is a statement level savepoint. If any of
>> the work against the db schema fails for any reason teh DDL statement
>> needs to be rolled back.
> > Why do you think the "CREATE statement" is not "ATMIC"? Have you ever seen a > partially created table? I haven't.
This is where we went apart. I stated that CREATE is indeed ATOMIC.
Then the rest of the post will make sense I hope.
-- Serge Rielau DB2 Solutions Development IBM Toronto LabReceived on Mon Nov 10 2008 - 21:37:00 CST