Re: Why Oracle does not allow rollback of DDL statements?
Date: 11 Nov 2008 10:12:16 +0100
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 07:24:58 -0500, Serge Rielau wrote:
> With transactional DDL your users would never have seen the invalid
> view. The ALTER TABLE and the CRATE OR REPLACE VIEW are a semantic unit.
> They should be executed together.
That is true. I usually have to do a little downtime for the applications when applying DDL. That doesn't seem to be a problem. IT departments that I worked in usually have downtime procedures and schedules. Each major DB has scheduled "maintenance time", some are admittedly very odd, like "every 2nd weekend in the month, between 02:00 AM and 04:00 AM on the night between Saturday and Sunday" but nevertheless, such policies usually do exist.
Editions are meant exactly for that but are largely undocumented. In the reference manual, the column EDITIONING_VIEW in the DBA_VIEWS view is described as "RFU". Dan Morgan has described the SQL interface here: http://www.psoug.org/reference/editions.html How exactly is that supposed to be used, I don't know. I am not at all sure that transactional DDL would be a good thing. It would deprive me of much of the insight in other users sessions that I now have.
-- Mladen Gogala http://mgogala.freehostia.comReceived on Tue Nov 11 2008 - 03:12:16 CST