On Jan 11, 2008, at 2:24 AM, Richard Huxton wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
My thinking is that a TRUNCATE trigger is a per-statement trigger
which
doesn't have access to the set of deleted rows (Replicator uses
it that
way -- we replicate the truncate action, and replay it on the
replica).
In that way it would be different from a per-statement trigger for
DELETE.
Ah, right. I was thinking in terms of having TRUNCATE actually
fire the
existing ON DELETE-type triggers, but that's not really helpful
--- you'd
need a separate trigger-event type. So we could just say by fiat
that
an ON TRUNCATE trigger doesn't get any rowset information, even
after we
add that for the other types of statement-level triggers.
I've always considered TRUNCATE to be DDL rather than DML. I
mentally group it with DROP TABLE rather than DELETE>
Not that DDL statement triggers wouldn't be just as useful for
replication.
Erik Jones
DBA | Emma®
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
800.595.4401 or 615.292.5888
615.292.0777 (fax)
Emma helps organizations everywhere communicate & market in style.
Visit us online at http://www.myemma.com
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
