| From: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com> |
| 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 02:41:19 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.21.0210191240480.7439-100000@linuxworld.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Mike Mascari wrote:
> 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?
Why should we be *only* as good as Oracle? :-)
Gavin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dann Corbit | 2002-10-19 02:54:54 | Design decision curiosity |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-10-19 02:33:42 | Open items |