Subject | Re: [firebird-support] Re: DDL updates in 2.5 |
---|---|
Author | Bart Smissaert |
Post date | 2011-11-22T16:13:22Z |
I noticed the same problem when creating a trigger in DB Worbench. Had
committed and also refreshed
the displayed triggers in the interface, but didn't show up. When
disconnecting and reconnecting they showed.
Confused me for a while.
RBS
committed and also refreshed
the displayed triggers in the interface, but didn't show up. When
disconnecting and reconnecting they showed.
Confused me for a while.
RBS
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 9:51 AM, martin.agren <martin_gbg_@...>wrote:
> **
>
>
>
>
> --- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, Tomasz Tyrakowski <t.tyrakowski@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I use Flamerobin myself and it's always required explicit commits after
> > DDL statements. However, recently I discovered a convenient option (look
> > at the "SQL Editor" branch in Flamerobin's preferences) "Automatically
> > commit DDL statements", which does the trick. I admit I've no idea how
> > long the option's been there (my ignorance sometimes scares me) but it's
> > there and does what it says.
> > So, with the option unchecked, the script
> >
> > create table T (
> > F integer
> > );
> >
> > create index I on T(F);
> >
> > fails on create index, saying table "T" doesn't exist. When you put
> > comimt after create table and before create index, it works.
> > With the option mentioned above turned on, the commit is issued
> > automatically by Flamerobin.
> > The auto-commit is client-dependent. Long ago I used SQL Explorer
> > shipped with Delphi 4 and it could be told to auto-commit all (!)
> > statements.
> >
> > I hope that helped a little.
> > regards
> > Tomasz
>
> This has nothing to do with committing the DDL update. My updates are of
> course committed but are still not affecting the data from subsequent
> queries in a new transaction context. Not until I disconnect the tool and
> all other connected applications.
>
> I guess that either is data cached somehow, or is the metadata change not
> visible.
>
> Is there noone else that experienced this??
>
> /M
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]