Re: TRUNCATE

From: "Joel Burton" <joel(at)joelburton(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Rod Taylor" <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca>
Cc: "Hackers List" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: TRUNCATE
Date: 2002-05-12 19:48:35
Message-ID: JGEPJNMCKODMDHGOBKDNAEMCCNAA.joel@joelburton.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org]On Behalf Of Tom Lane
> Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 12:30 PM
> To: Rod Taylor
> Cc: Hackers List
> 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?

I've relied on being able to TRUNCATE w/o having RI kick in to lots of data
clean ups, forced sorts, etc. I'd find it annoying if I couldn't do this
anymore (or had to do equally-annoying things, like manually drop then
recreate the triggers, etc.)

I'm happy w/o the FORCE option (just let TRUNCATE do it), but if enough
people think that the FORCE keyword should be added to allow overriding of
triggers, that could be a good compromise.

But, please, don't take away the ability to TRUNCATE. Doing it when there
are triggers is one the strengths of TRUNCATE, IMNSHO.

- J.

Joel BURTON | joel(at)joelburton(dot)com | joelburton.com | aim: wjoelburton
Knowledge Management & Technology Consultant

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-05-12 20:33:47 Re: SRF patch (was Re: [HACKERS] troubleshooting pointers)
Previous Message Patrick Welche 2002-05-12 17:45:11 Re: PostgreSQL mission statement?