On 2016-08-05 16:44:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > On 2016-08-05 16:35:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> In particular, it seems to me that rather than implement just this, > >> we really ought to provide an API that lets FDWs actually implement > >> TRUNCATE if they feel like it. Having the trigger and not TRUNCATE > >> capability itself just screams "half baked", wouldn't you say? > > > Both is fine with me. I do object to the position that we need an answer > > for all utility commands - that seems like a too high hurdle to pass - > > but implementing truncate for FDWs directly sounds good. > > To clarify: I was certainly not suggesting that we need to implement > more than that in the first go. I was just saying that some sort of > long-term roadmap about utility commands for FDWs would be a good idea.
Well, my problem with that is that I don't see TRUNCATE as being in the same camp as most other utility commands; thus I'm not sure there's really a coherent view for it and the rest. In the end it's just an optimized DELETE, and we didn't say that other DML needs to provide a view for utility commands either. - Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
