On Jan 20, 1:19*pm, m... (AT) pixar (DOT) com wrote:
It is important to remember that DDL does an implicit commit before
and after the DDL.

So start counting how many commits are really there :-)

One way around this is to do the creates so that they don't actually
get any rows, then you can insert into...select... in a consistent
manner within a transaction.

I think this is better than the deferred constraint option because you
then don't have to worry about violations at all, the set of data is
already valid - the deferred option could potentially bite you at the
end of a large transaction, or at least make work checking exception
tables.

I don't know how many times I've read concepts manuals and Tom's books
and coded stuff like this (but not newfangled deferred), and I still
need to periodically review the rules. Dan, if I'm missing something
obvious, please educate me! I'm sure at some point data volume
becomes a tipping point, perhaps when it becomes a substantial
fraction of undo ts size? But since my undo "needs" to be nearly as
big as the rest of the db, I haven't run into that recently. You can
tell I'm not a DW guy :-)

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/...urrentPage=all