Hi, Aleksey! On Sep 06, Aleksey Midenkov wrote: > > > > > > I believe ALTER TABLE atomicity is not the perfect one in respect of > > > rollback on error so why should that be an example for me? > > > > let's start from a statement. You're stating that ALTER TABLE atomicity > > is not the perfect one in respect of rollback on error. > > > > What do you mean by that? Can you show how ALTER TABLE wouldn't be > > atomic after a rollback on an error? > > An example test is attached to this email.
Hmm, I see, thanks. > I guess partitioning has no approach for that, the best it does is > printing the warning message. So it is 2 of them. And partitioning can > be easily switched to my scheme. As for the other DDL, it should be > simplified as well, I hope this is possible. But as an intermediate we > can have 2 approaches: for partitioning (my scheme) and for other DDL. Okay, can you push this MDEV into preview-10.7-MDEV-22166-convert-partition ? Only commits related to this MDEV, properly logically squashed, tests fixed. Commits related to CREATE OR REPLACE shouldn't be there. changes to parser.test or any traces of EXTRACT neither. I suspect you broke dbug-t unit test, please, verify that it passes. Regards, Sergei VP of MariaDB Server Engineering and [email protected] _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
