| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Wells Oliver <wells(dot)oliver(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Wael Khobalatte <wael(at)vendr(dot)com>, pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Persistent changes in rolled-back transactions |
| Date: | 2022-11-10 01:23:35 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwYScf5K8TJ80C4iohDPdyKrjDNbPqwHTNn-xu=kgUtjWQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 6:19 PM Wells Oliver <wells(dot)oliver(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Why do you say truncate is non-transactional? Something simple proves that
> it's not?
>
Or just read the documentation for the current version (I seem to recall it
used to be non-transactional, maybe...doesn't matter now).
Sequences really shouldn't have been a surprise given the great lengths we
go to document their gap-ful nature and this property.
Most anything a typical user is going to do within a SQL transaction is
going to either be transactional or it will be disallowed to execute said
command within a transaction.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Wael Khobalatte | 2022-11-10 01:40:12 | Re: Persistent changes in rolled-back transactions |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2022-11-10 01:20:22 | Re: Persistent changes in rolled-back transactions |