Re: Improve behavior of concurrent TRUNCATE

On 2018-Aug-06, Michael Paquier wrote:

> Attached is a patch I have been working on which refactors the code of
> TRUNCATE in such a way that we check for privileges before trying to
> acquire a lock, without any user-facing impact (I have reworked a couple
> of comments compared to the last version). This includes a set of tests
> showing the new behavior.
>
> Like cbe24a6, perhaps we would not want to back-patch it? Based on the
> past history (and the consensus being reached for the REINDEX case would
> be to patch only HEAD), I would be actually incline to not back-patch
> this stuff and qualify that as an improvement. That's also less work
> for me at commit :)

I'm not sure I understand your arguments for not back-patching this.

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services