Re: Improve behavior of concurrent TRUNCATE

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Improve behavior of concurrent TRUNCATE
Date: 2018-08-10 18:03:28
Message-ID: 20180810180328.evn73orzdpkusvfz@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2018-08-10 18:31:25 Re: [HACKERS] Cutting initdb's runtime (Perl question embedded)
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2018-08-10 17:30:51 Re: NLS handling fixes.