Re: Enhancement to pg_dump

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Rob Kirkbride <rob(dot)kirkbride(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Enhancement to pg_dump
Date: 2008-11-26 12:50:38
Message-ID: 8763mar6qp.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Rob Kirkbride <rob(dot)kirkbride(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:

> Richard,
>
> Yes, I've changed it use TRUNCATE rather than DELETE and it's working well for
> us now.

I'm a bit surprised actually as it sounded like you were aiming to avoid the
table lock. A TRUNCATE does require an exclusive lock on the table. It still
has advantages over DROP in that there is no window when the table does not
exist and any existing references to the table from views or functions will
continue to function.

--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's RemoteDBA services!

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rob Kirkbride 2008-11-26 12:56:52 Re: Enhancement to pg_dump
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2008-11-26 12:43:12 Re: Visibility map, partial vacuums