On Jan 11, 2008, at 2:24 AM, Richard Huxton wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
>>> My thinking is that a TRUNCATE trigger is a per-statement trigger
>>> which
>>> doesn't have access to the set of deleted rows (Replicator uses
>>> it that
>>> way -- we replicate the truncate action, and replay it on the
>>> replica).
>>> In that way it would be different from a per-statement trigger for
>>> DELETE.
>> Ah, right. I was thinking in terms of having TRUNCATE actually
>> fire the
>> existing ON DELETE-type triggers, but that's not really helpful
>> --- you'd
>> need a separate trigger-event type. So we could just say by fiat
>> that
>> an ON TRUNCATE trigger doesn't get any rowset information, even
>> after we
>> add that for the other types of statement-level triggers.
>
> I've always considered TRUNCATE to be DDL rather than DML. I
> mentally group it with DROP TABLE rather than DELETE>
Not that DDL statement triggers wouldn't be just as useful for
replication.
Erik Jones
DBA | Emma®
erik@myemma.com
800.595.4401 or 615.292.5888
615.292.0777 (fax)
Emma helps organizations everywhere communicate & market in style.
Visit us online at http://www.myemma.com
