Re: autocommit vs TRUNCATE et al

Added to TODO:

* Make a transaction-safe TRUNCATE

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Friday 18 October 2002 11:25 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> > > On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> Anyone see a way out of this catch-22? If not, which is the least
> > >> bad alternative?
>
> > > Ultimately, fix TRUNCATE to be transaction safe. This is non-trivial,
> > > I know :-).
>
> > I was about to say that the entire *point* of TRUNCATE is to be
> > transaction-unsafe ;-)
>
> I actually was considering using a transaction-safe TRUNCATE in an application
> involving daily imports of 170MB of data into a set of linked tables. Since
> the import takes a finite amount of time, it would be nice to have the
> previous data available while the new is being imported. And TRUNCATE is
> significantly faster than DELETE over 170MB of data.
> --
> Lamar Owen
> WGCR Internet Radio
> 1 Peter 4:11
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073