Re: Yet another "drop table vs delete" question
От | Christophe |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Yet another "drop table vs delete" question |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 2EAF6CC1-1889-440E-954A-8E7B4C02B1B0@thebuild.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Yet another "drop table vs delete" question (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Yet another "drop table vs delete" question
|
Список | pgsql-general |
On Apr 21, 2009, at 1:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > They're both going to drop data that > might conceivably be visible in the snapshot of some concurrent > transaction that hasn't yet touched the table (else it would have > lock) > but might wish to do so later. Unless I'm deeply misunderstanding something (always a possibility), DROP TABLE and TRUNCATE are not symmetrical in this regard. Once a transaction has issued a DROP TABLE, all other transactions that attempt to modify it are going to block on the first transaction's ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock until it commits or aborts. In the case of TRUNCATE, the other transactions will see the table as being empty from the moment in the first transaction issues the TRUNCATE, and will see the rows reappear if the first transaction rolls back. Yes?
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: