| 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
| 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 |