| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: parallel restore |
| Date: | 2009-01-08 00:25:46 |
| Message-ID: | 8237.1231374346@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Now, we could decide that we always want to do a safe truncate in a
> parallel restore (i.e. if we have created the table in the same
> restore), even if archive_mode is on. Then this switch would be
> redundant, and we might avoid some confusion. I'm inclined to do that
> right now. In that case we could leave for consideration for 8.5 a
> switch providing for a TRUNCATE CASCADE on tables before loading them.
+1. I'm not at all clear on the use-case for a user visible switch
of this sort anyway; it seems more like a foot-gun than something
really helpful.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2009-01-08 00:58:00 | Re: New patch for Column-level privileges |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-01-08 00:24:12 | Re: Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal |