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

Re: Regarding TODO item "%Add a separate TRUNCATE permission"

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Gevik Babakhani <pgdev(at)xs4all(dot)nl>,pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Regarding TODO item "%Add a separate TRUNCATE permission"
Date: 2006-04-26 18:30:24
Message-ID: 20060426183024.GS4474@ns.snowman.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
* Stephen Frost (sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net) wrote:
> * Alvaro Herrera (alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com) wrote:
> > Stephen Frost wrote:
> > 
> > > > The question that really ought to be answered before doing any of this
> > > > is why DELETE privilege shouldn't be sufficient to allow TRUNCATE.
> > > 
> > > TRUNCATE doesn't follow MVCC...
> > 
> > We can certainly talk about fixing that.  (And CLUSTER at the same time,
> > I think.)
> 
> The issue is that it seems to be intractable to retain MVCC-ness *and*
> provide the performance savings TRUNCATE gives.  If you can solve that
> problem then we could get rid of TRUNCATE and implement
> DELETE-without-WHERE using that magic.

Let me qualify that- in cases where there aren't row-level triggers or 
other things which would prevent it from being possible anyway.

	Thanks,

		Stephen

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-04-26 18:33:09
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Enhanced containment selectivity function
Previous:From: Stephen FrostDate: 2006-04-26 18:23:16
Subject: Re: Regarding TODO item "%Add a separate TRUNCATE permission"

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