![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/39b623a1559cf9c69ac3d9d4fb44e7fe.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
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. Regards, Sergei VP of MariaDB Server Engineering and security@mariadb.org