| From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)mail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: TRUNCATE SERIALIZABLE and frozen COPY |
| Date: | 2012-11-09 15:24:09 |
| Message-ID: | CAHyXU0zJTz1eL=vp3dvKUFCnACON_b-ufSX1RSQR00ufHObfsQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 8:22 AM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)mail(dot)com> wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> What I've been wondering since this last came up is whether we
>> could use some variant of the SIREAD locks Kevin introduced for SSI
>> to handle this case - essentially have the transaction doing the
>> TRUNCATE make an entry in the lock table that will force a
>> serialization failure for any backend which accesses the table with
>> a snapshot that can't see the truncating transaction's XID.
>
> It seems to me that the goal would be to make this semantically
> idential to the behavior users would see if an unqualified DELETE
> were run against the table rather than a TRUNCATE. To wit:
but, triggers would not fire, right?
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2012-11-09 15:34:06 | Re: TRUNCATE SERIALIZABLE and frozen COPY |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-11-09 15:18:29 | Re: TRUNCATE SERIALIZABLE and frozen COPY |