Re: Persistent changes in rolled-back transactions

> Why do you say truncate is non-transactional? Something simple proves
that it's not?

Right, I meant 'non-transactional' in the sense that "persisted changes" as
you quoted them will also appear in the case of Truncate (MVCC-safety is
more correct here). As David mention I also thought it was not
transactional at all, but it seems it is in recent version or I am seeing
ghosts. Regardless, it's definitely fits the description of what you are
trying to be aware of when it comes to transactional behavior.

Consider starting a transaction in REPEATABLE READ, do a "begin", then
nothing (because if you select you block the upcoming truncate). In a
different session, do the truncation, commit it. Back to the REPEATABLE
READ transaction, still open, you select, the data is gone. Therefore
"persisted changes" is true.