| From: | Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: autocommit vs TRUNCATE et al |
| Date: | 2002-10-20 02:43:16 |
| Message-ID: | 200210192243.16899.lamar.owen@wgcr.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Friday 18 October 2002 11:25 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> > On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Anyone see a way out of this catch-22? If not, which is the least
> >> bad alternative?
> > Ultimately, fix TRUNCATE to be transaction safe. This is non-trivial,
> > I know :-).
> I was about to say that the entire *point* of TRUNCATE is to be
> transaction-unsafe ;-)
I actually was considering using a transaction-safe TRUNCATE in an application
involving daily imports of 170MB of data into a set of linked tables. Since
the import takes a finite amount of time, it would be nice to have the
previous data available while the new is being imported. And TRUNCATE is
significantly faster than DELETE over 170MB of data.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-10-20 02:51:12 | Re: autocommit vs TRUNCATE et al |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-10-20 02:42:07 | Re: DBD::PG - any works to be compatile with 7.3 ? |