Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: about truncate

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>
Subject: Re: about truncate
Date: 2008-12-30 16:50:06
Message-ID: 16195.1230655806@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alex HunsakerDate: 2008-12-30 16:59:09
Subject: Re: contrib/pg_stat_statements 1226
Previous:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2008-12-30 16:31:01
Subject: Re: Hot standby and b-tree killed items

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group