| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: autocommit vs TRUNCATE et al |
| Date: | 2002-10-19 01:45:50 |
| Message-ID: | 3DB0B94E.4030903@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Joe Conway wrote:
>
>>Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>
>>>>most useful approach. The analogy to SET hadn't occurred to me.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yea, the SET behavior appeared pretty queer to me, but now that I have
>>>used it, I am getting used to it.
<snip examples>
>
> In the last case, the TRUNCATE will happen, and the INSERTs will be in
> their own multi-statement transaction. A SET in place of TRUNCATE will
> behave the same way.
>
Hmmm. It does look strange. We ought to make this prominent in the release
notes and docs.
Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gavin Sherry | 2002-10-19 02:02:11 | Re: autocommit vs TRUNCATE et al |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-10-19 01:39:01 | Re: autocommit vs TRUNCATE et al |