> DDL statements, atomic or otherwise, implicitly end any transaction that is active in the current session, as if you had done a COMMIT before executing the statement.

That sounds horrifying. Implicitly committing transactions could very well leave the database in an undefined / inconsistent state, no? That is, from the applications view, if I do:

   BEGIN;
     STATEMENT A;
     STATEMENT B;
   END;

I would expect either both or neither to succeed, but that paragraph would suggest that A could succeed, and the transaction be committed. (And who knows after that?)

Am I missing something?