Re: TRUNCATE SERIALIZABLE and frozen COPY - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: TRUNCATE SERIALIZABLE and frozen COPY
Date
Msg-id CA+U5nM+a96+7DZCooZZ+TUzNn=n2fGwmszH5irLde=2DBcFruQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: TRUNCATE SERIALIZABLE and frozen COPY  ("Kevin Grittner" <kgrittn@mail.com>)
Responses Re: TRUNCATE SERIALIZABLE and frozen COPY  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Re: TRUNCATE SERIALIZABLE and frozen COPY  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 9 November 2012 15:34, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@mail.com> wrote:

> 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.

Reasonable question.

My goal is to allow COPY to load frozen tuples without causing MVCC violations.

Altering TRUNCATE so it behaves perfectly from an MVCC/Serializable
perspective is a much bigger, and completely different goal, as well
as something I don't see as desirable anyway for at least 2 good
reasons, as explained. IMHO if people want MVCC/Serializable
semantics, use DELETE, possibly spending time to make unqualified
DELETE do some fancy TRUNCATE-like tricks with relfilenodes.

Forcing a tightly scoped proposal into a much wider one will just kill
this and leave it blocked.

-- Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: Re: TRUNCATE SERIALIZABLE and frozen COPY
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: TRUNCATE SERIALIZABLE and frozen COPY