Re: Why Oracle does not allow rollback of DDL statements?
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 07:07:59 -0600
"Serge Rielau" <srielau_at_ca.ibm.com> wrote in message
> 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