| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: TRUNCATE SERIALIZABLE and frozen COPY |
| Date: | 2012-11-08 17:07:36 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob7s-UZ+dkEevQ0R6cRR_4uk5d57D9dzvAjy=hoaNJx5g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> For 9.2 we discussed having COPY setting tuples as frozen. Various
> details apply.
> Earlier threads:
> "RFC: Making TRUNCATE more "MVCC-safe"
> "COPY with hints, rebirth"
>
> I was unhappy with changing the behaviour of TRUNCATE, and still am.
> So the proposal here is to have a specific modifier on TRUNCATE
> command that makes it MVCC safe by throwing a serialization error.
I don't think I understand the proposal. Under what circumstances
would it throw a serialization error?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-11-08 17:10:39 | Re: Doc patch, distinguish sections with an empty row in error code table |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2012-11-08 16:56:41 | Re: [BUGS] BUG #7534: walreceiver takes long time to detect n/w breakdown |