Den 2011-04-01 09:47 skrev Dmitry Yemanov såhär:
01.04.2011 11:19, Kjell Rilbe wrote:
I'm not sure I made much sense... Tell me, does the standard specify
anything regarding datatype change features? If so, what does it say?
It allows to alter a string column to a string one of the
01.04.2011 11:51, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
I don't understand why this job is deferred. If DDL is impossible, user must
be informed
about this fact ASAP.
In order to perform the validation, you have to lock the table from
concurrent modifications. If it's done ASAP and the lock is then
01.04.2011 12:24, Alex Peshkoff wrote:
Dmitry, where have you found a reference in standard tat string column
can be altered to wider one type?
What Is see in SQL2008 is:
Your copy is outdated :-) My version of 2010-10-14 says:
alter table statement ::=
ALTER TABLE table name alter table
Den 2011-04-01 10:38 skrev Dmitry Yemanov såhär:
Your copy is outdated :-) My version of 2010-10-14 says:
alter table statement ::=
ALTER TABLEtable name alter table action
alter table action ::=
add column definition
|alter column definition
|drop column definition
|add table
Den 2011-04-01 10:53 skrev Dimitry Sibiryakov såhär:
01.04.2011 10:47, Dmitry Yemanov wrote:
Personally, I don't see problems with combining both approaches, i.e.
use the fast versioning mode for the a priori valid changes and
perform the explicit validation for possibly problematic changes.
01.04.2011 12:53, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:
May I suggest to add non-standard optional clause NOVALIDATE for users who
are sure
that validation is unnecessary and want to save time on commit?..
I'm against this. But feel free to keep arguing :-)
Dmitry
01.04.2011 11:00, Kjell Rilbe wrote:
Good idea, but what if the user later turns out to have been wrong? How
to handle it?
It will be his/her problem. Restore backup.
01.04.2011 11:03, Dmitry Yemanov wrote:
I'm against this. But feel free to keep arguing :-)
If user has a
Den 2011-04-01 11:07 skrev Dimitry Sibiryakov såhär:
01.04.2011 11:03, Dmitry Yemanov wrote:
I'm against this. But feel free to keep arguing :-)
If user has a many-gigabytes table, validation time will be big.
Tell me about it... I have a 52 gigabyte DB with two 150 million record
