Re: Must be owner to truncate?
От | Stephen Frost |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Must be owner to truncate? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20050707212713.GM24207@ns.snowman.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Must be owner to truncate? (Andrew - Supernews <andrew+nonews@supernews.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Must be owner to truncate?
Re: Must be owner to truncate? |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
* Andrew - Supernews (andrew+nonews@supernews.com) wrote: > On 2005-07-07, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote: > > > >> * truncate is not MVCC-safe. > > > > Erm, that's why it gets a stronger lock, so I don't really see what > > this has to do with it. > > It's not MVCC-safe even with the AccessExclusive lock; it damages snapshots > that were taken before the truncate operation but which don't have a lock > on the table yet. The only reason it doesn't break pg_dump is that the > first thing that pg_dump does is to take AccessShare locks on every table > that it's going to dump. This seems like something which should probably be fixed, but which is probably too late to fix for 8.1. Of course, if we could fix this then it seems like it would be possible for us to just change 'delete from x' to behave as truncate does now given appropriate conditions. I'm not as familiar with that area as others are; is this a very difficult thing to do? If not then I may take a look at it, it'd be a very nice improvement. Thanks, Stephen
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: