Re: Transactional DDL, but not Serializable - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Transactional DDL, but not Serializable
Date
Msg-id 14868.1301078648@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Transactional DDL, but not Serializable  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Responses Re: Transactional DDL, but not Serializable
List pgsql-hackers
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> Sorry, that obviously didn't come across clearly (I think I've just been
> talking to Kevin far too much).

> I'm not interested in making them serializable.  I'd like to not have
> tables randomly appear during a serializable transaction.

Well, basically, you can't have that.  Example: you have an existing
table with primary key, and while you're in the middle of doing some
long transaction, somebody else creates a table with a foreign-key
reference to the one you're about to do a delete from.  Being
serializable does not excuse you from the obligation to check for
FK violations in that "invisible" table.  It might be acceptable to
fail entirely, but not to act as though the table isn't there.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: When and how many times does ExecSetParamPlan executes?
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Pre-set Hint bits/VACUUM FREEZE on data load..?