Re: autocommit vs TRUNCATE et al

From: Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com>
To: Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: autocommit vs TRUNCATE et al
Date: 2002-10-19 02:07:39
Message-ID: 3DB0BE6B.3020806@mascari.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Gavin Sherry wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>
>>Anyone see a way out of this catch-22? If not, which is the least
>>bad alternative?
>
>
> Ultimately, fix TRUNCATE to be transaction safe. This is non-trivial,
> I know :-).
>
> Regardless, the first option seems the less of the two evils.

Even though TRUNCATE was modeled after Oracle's TRUNCATE and
Oracle's TRUNCATE commits the running tx, truncates the
relation, and starts a new tx, regardless of whether or not
TRUNCATE is the first statement of the tx?

Mike Mascari
mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-10-19 02:09:35 Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE ... ADD COLUMN
Previous Message Gavin Sherry 2002-10-19 02:02:11 Re: autocommit vs TRUNCATE et al