Hi Simon, On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 4:36 AM, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
