"Andrew Dunstan" <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> Bruce Momjian said:
> > DROP would drop the table on a restart
> > after a non-clean shutdown. It would do _no_ logging on the table and
> > allow concurrent access, plus index access. DELETE is the same as
> > DROP, but it just truncates the table (perhaps TRUNCATE is a better
> > word).
> >
> > EXCLUSIVE would allow only a single session to modify the table, and
> > would do all changes by appending to the table, similar to COPY LOCK.
> > EXCLUSIVE would also not allow indexes because those can not be
> > isolated like appending to the heap. EXCLUSIVE would write all dirty
> > shared buffers for the table and fsync them before committing. SHARE
> > is the functionality we have now, with full logging.
>
> I an horribly scared that this will be used as a "performance boost" for
> normal use. I would at least like to see some restrictions that make it
> harder to mis-use. Perhaps restrict to superuser?
Well that's its whole purpose. At least you can hardly argue that you didn't
realize the consequences of "DELETE ROWS ON RECOVERY"... :)
Some thoughts:
a) I'm not sure I understand the purpose of EXCLUSIVE. When would I ever want to use it instead of DELETE ROWS?
b) It seems like the other feature people were talking about of not logging for a table created within the same
transactionshould be handled by having this flag implicitly set for any such newly created table. Ie, the test for
whetherto log would look like:
if (!table->logged && table->xid != myxid) ...
c) Every option in ALTER TABLE should be in CREATE TABLE as well.
d) Yes as someone else mentioned, this should only be allowable on a table with no foreign keys referencing it.
--
greg
