Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Allow TRUNCATE foo, foo to succeed, per report from Nikhils.

Hi Simon,

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 4:36 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:

On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 17:59 -0400, Neil Conway wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 21:39 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > TRUNCATE foo;
> > TRUNCATE foo;
> >
> > works well.
> >
> > So why do we need
> >

I presented a simple psql version here. I was actually processing multiple relations in my C library in which truncate was invoked on all the involved relations. I was passing a list of these rels to ExecuteTruncate which barfed when the same rel was mentioned twice in that list. Its really an implementation issue as Tom mentioned.

Regards,
Nikhils
 

> >  TRUNCATE foo, foo;
>
> For the sake of completeness? Having "TRUNCATE foo, foo" fail would be
> rather inconsistent.

Inconsistent with what exactly?

If a proposal to support this was made on hackers, it would be laughed
away. It is not required for functionality, usability, standards
compliance, backwards compatibility, robustness, performance, internal
coding simplicity, portability, marketing or external compatibility. For
what reason would we do it? Nobody has said.

And as I pointed out, other commands fail in similar circumstances.

Consistency is required, but consistency in making balanced judgements
about feature additions.

Our users will be surprised to find this was at the top of our list
ahead of other patches during a commit fest, other agreed TODO items and
other proposals from users.

--
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com
 PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support


--

Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list (pgsql-committers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers

--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com