| From: | "Rod Taylor" <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca> | 
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
| Cc: | "Hackers List" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: TRUNCATE | 
| Date: | 2002-05-12 16:40:09 | 
| Message-ID: | 02ef01c1f9d3$ae4ea590$0f02000a@jester | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
The only time I can think of that a FORCE type mechanism would be
allowed would be internal functions.  Perhaps a new cluster (copy
data, truncate table, copy data back sorted).
Internal stuff can call heap_truncate() directly rather than going
through TruncateRelation.
A user style force is to simply drop all rules, foreign keys,
triggers, etc -- do the action -- re-apply constraints.  Anything else
could mean their data isn't consistent.
--
Rod
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Rod Taylor" <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca>
Cc: "Hackers List" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] TRUNCATE
> "Rod Taylor" <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca> writes:
> > I'm thinking it should check for an on delete rule as well as user
> > triggers.
>
> Seems reasonable to me.
>
> Should there be a "FORCE" option to override these checks and do it
> anyway?  Or is that just asking for trouble?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2002-05-12 17:23:32 | Re: Nested transactions RFC | 
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-05-12 16:30:25 | Re: TRUNCATE |