> Huh. One transaction truncating a dozen tables? That would match the
> sinval trace all right ...
It should be 4 tables - the shown log looks like there were more truncates?
> You might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater,
> performance-wise.
Yes, performance was the initial reason to use truncate instead of
delete many years ago. But today the truncated tables usualy contain
exactly one row - quick measurements now show that it's faster to issue
delete instead of truncate in this case.
Again, many thanks for your invaluable advice!
Kuba
