Merlin Moncure wrote:
> Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@mail.com> wrote:
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>> It seems to me that the goal would be to make this semantically
>> idential to the behavior users would see if an unqualified DELETE
>> were run against the table rather than a TRUNCATE.
>
> but, triggers would not fire, right?
Right. Perhaps "identical" was too strong a word. I was referring to
the aspect under consideration here -- making it "serializable" in
line with other MVCC operations.
If we're not talking about making conflicts with other transactions
behave just the same as an unqualified DELETE from a user
perspective, I'm not sure what the goal is, exactly. Obviously we
would be keeping the guts of the implementation the same (swapping in
a new, empty heap).
-Kevin
