ReadMeFeed / Community knowledge
Real questions. Useful conversations. Find the people who know your stack.
Goal To determine whether a transaction that performs ALTER TABLE DROP COLUMN can be fully rolled back in Firebird 4.0, restoring the original schema state without leaving residual objects. Unresolved behavior Firebird 2.5+ supports transactional DDL, but documentation notes that dropping a column is not fully reversible. The behavior appears to vary between
Goal: Ensure a Yii 2.x migration can apply a CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY statement on a live PostgreSQL database without causing the migration to fail or leaving the database in an inconsistent state after a rollback. Constraint: Yii migrations wrap each step in a transaction by default, but PostgreSQL rejects CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY when executed inside a t
After an ALTER TABLE ... CHANGE, ADD, or DROP COLUMN, the Hive metastore immediately records the new column definitions while the underlying data files remain unchanged, creating a schema‑metadata mismatch. The objective is to provide a safe rollback that restores both metadata and data to a consistent state without manual re‑creation of the table or re‑load
Goal Determine the exact transactional boundaries for schema changes in Azure SQL Database, specifically focusing on operations that are auto‑committed and cannot be rolled back, and explore whether any configuration can enforce rollback safety. Current Constraints DDL statements are generally transactional, but some, such as ALTER TABLE DROP COLUMN , are au
When using Bun's built‑in sqlite module, developers often wrap schema migrations in an explicit transaction expecting that a ROLLBACK will undo any CREATE, ALTER, or DROP statements if something goes wrong. However, SQLite issues an implicit commit for DDL statements, which ends the open transaction before the ROLLBACK is processed, leaving the schema change
Transactional DDL Behavior Laminas-Db utilizes a Connection interface to manage transactions via beginTransaction() , commit() , and rollback() . These methods act as wrappers for the underlying PDO driver. However, many relational database engines, such as MySQL, trigger an implicit commit when Data Definition Language (DDL) statements are executed, which p
Vitess supports online schema migrations through declarative strategies that track state changes. While the system provides a REVERT command to apply inverse DDL, this process is a logical schema reversal rather than a point-in-time recovery. The primary concern is whether the revert mechanism serves as a reliable rollback strategy once a migration has succe
I am writing an R package that applies schema changes through DBI and want failures to leave the database untouched. My plan was to wrap everything in dbBegin() / dbCommit() and call dbRollback() on error, but I am unsure whether that actually protects statements like ALTER TABLE . My understanding is that many backends issue an implicit commit around DDL, s
Background When a LuaSQL client executes a DDL statement such as CREATE TABLE inside a transaction, the expectation is that a subsequent connection:rollback() will undo the schema change. In practice, the outcome depends on the underlying driver and database server. Goal Determine whether a DDL executed within a LuaSQL transaction can be safely rolled back a
firebird
yii
hadoop
azuresqldatabase
sqlite
bun
laminas
vitess
r
lua