The author doesn't mention why he got a 600x increase- perhaps he
bypassed the delete triggers which was OK for his situation. I don't
like the notion that an optimization requires additional
privileges...why not detect an unqualified delete and call truncate
instead IFF there are no delete triggers on the table?
> I'm not entirely sure that requiring ownership of the table is the
> appropriate restriction for TRUNCATE. It made some sense back when
> TRUNCATE wasn't transaction-safe, but now that it is, you could almost
> argue that ordinary DELETE privilege should allow TRUNCATE.
>
> Almost. The hole in the argument is that TRUNCATE doesn't run ON
> DELETE
> triggers and so it could possibly be used to bypass things the table
> owner wants to have happen. You could equate TRUNCATE to DROP
> TRIGGER(s),
> DELETE, CREATE TRIGGER(s) ... but DROP TRIGGER requires ownership.
>
> CREATE TRIGGER only requires TRIGGER privilege which is grantable.
> So one answer is to change DROP TRIGGER to require TRIGGER privilege
> (which would mean user A could remove a trigger installed by user B,
> if both have TRIGGER privileges on the table) and then say you can
> TRUNCATE if you have both DELETE and TRIGGER privileges.
>
> It looks to me like the asymmetry between CREATE TRIGGER and DROP
> TRIGGER is actually required by SQL99, though, so changing it would
> be a hard sell (unless SQL2003 fixes it?).
>
> Comments anyone?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if
> your
> joining column's datatypes do not match