On 3/28/2006 3:18 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 02:41:59PM -0500, Christopher Browne wrote:
>> If I hear nothing, I expect I'll go with "option #1."  In principle,
>> #3 is the "cleanest," but it's definitely the most work.
> 
> I'm uncomfortable with option 1: this seems like a much stronger lock
> requirement than I think we originally anticipated.  At the very
> least, it seems like it causes a requirement to be very careful in
> building your replication sets -- more careful than I think most
> users are willing to tolerate.

There is danger with all the other options though. At this time, with 
reversing all tables to their original state, the DDL is guaranteed to 
execute against a fully consistent system catalog. Any attempt to limit 
the number of tables being locked ultimately leads to DDL being executed 
against a corrupted system catalog.


Jan

-- 
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck at Yahoo.com #