Tom Lane wrote:
>Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
>
>
>>Gerardo Herzig escribió:
>>
>>
>>>Yes, the TRUNCATE statement is not sql ansi, maybe is a more low level
>>>thing than i think.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>TRUNCATE currently does not fire triggers, but that doesn't mean it's
>>impossible to do it. I think it would be fairly easy to add support
>>for that.
>>
>>
>
>The entire point of TRUNCATE is to not do a table scan, so making it
>fire per-row triggers seems pretty misguided to me.
>
>We could maybe make it fire per-statement ON DELETE triggers, but
>there's a future-proofing pitfall in that: someday it'd be nice
>for statement-level triggers to have access to the set of deleted rows,
>and then you'd be stuck either scanning the table or having TRUNCATE
>act differently from plain DELETE.
>
>My feeling is that if you want to know what was deleted, you shouldn't
>use TRUNCATE.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
>
I 100% agree, i can live using delete instead, but i can't ensure the
whole team i work with will not use TRUNCATE. It was my bad naming the
thread with such a contradictory name, im just looking the way to
capture it in any form. I would even consider the posibility of
*ignoring* a TRUNCATE command, if thats possible.
Thanks you all, dudes!
Gerardo
