From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Gevik Babakhani <pgdev(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Regarding TODO item "%Add a separate TRUNCATE permission" |
Date: | 2006-04-26 18:30:24 |
Message-ID: | 20060426183024.GS4474@ns.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Stephen Frost (sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net) wrote:
> * Alvaro Herrera (alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com) wrote:
> > Stephen Frost wrote:
> >
> > > > The question that really ought to be answered before doing any of this
> > > > is why DELETE privilege shouldn't be sufficient to allow TRUNCATE.
> > >
> > > TRUNCATE doesn't follow MVCC...
> >
> > We can certainly talk about fixing that. (And CLUSTER at the same time,
> > I think.)
>
> The issue is that it seems to be intractable to retain MVCC-ness *and*
> provide the performance savings TRUNCATE gives. If you can solve that
> problem then we could get rid of TRUNCATE and implement
> DELETE-without-WHERE using that magic.
Let me qualify that- in cases where there aren't row-level triggers or
other things which would prevent it from being possible anyway.
Thanks,
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-04-26 18:33:09 | Re: [HACKERS] Enhanced containment selectivity function |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2006-04-26 18:23:16 | Re: Regarding TODO item "%Add a separate TRUNCATE permission" |