Hi Sergei, On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 12:34 PM Sergei Golubchik <s...@mariadb.org> wrote: > > 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.
Pushed. > > Regards, > Sergei > VP of MariaDB Server Engineering > and secur...@mariadb.org -- @midenok _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers Post to : maria-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp