Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Considering that TRUNCATE is a pretty dangerous operation, how can we
>> make adjustments to the behavior without upsetting lots of users?
> Well, it is one of those, "Either we fix it or live with the
> inconsistency forever". Historically we have opted to fix it with a
> clear warning in the major release notes.
The only alternatives I can see are
(1) go ahead and change it.
(2) invent a separate "truncate_inheritance" GUC that is just like
"sql_inheritance" except it applies only for TRUNCATE.
Ugly as (2) is, I think it just puts off the pain. Sooner or later
we'd want to flip the factory default from false to true, and the
release that does that is *still* going to burn anyone who's not
paying attention to the release notes.
My vote is to just go ahead and change it. I don't really see much
of a use-case for truncating only the parent of an inheritance
hierarchy anyway, so I doubt that many people would be affected.
I note though that we have a lot of other non-recursive maintenance
operations (CLUSTER, some variants of ALTER TABLE, etc) ... are we
going to try to make them all recursive?
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Alex Hunsaker||Date: 2008-12-30 16:59:09|
|Subject: Re: contrib/pg_stat_statements 1226|
|Previous:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2008-12-30 16:31:01|
|Subject: Re: Hot standby and b-tree killed items|