Re: Why Oracle does not allow rollback of DDL statements?

"Serge Rielau" <srielau_at_ca.ibm.com> wrote in message news:6nscutFljeoU1_at_mid.individual.net...
> 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.
>

If it is already atomic, why does it "still need to be atomic"?

> Then the rest of the post will make sense I hope.
>

You mean about rolling back a DDL statement? Yes, but rather pointless. Received on Tue Nov 11 2008 - 07:07:59 CST