On 2018/09/14 10:53, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2018/09/13 23:13, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> writes:
>>> On 2018/09/13 1:14, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> That seems excessively restrictive. Anything that has storage (e.g.
>>>> matviews) ought to be truncatable, no?
>>
>>> Not by heap_truncate it seems. The header comment of heap_truncate says
>>> that it concerns itself only with ON COMMIT truncation of temporary tables:
>>
>> Ah. Well, in that case I'm OK with just a simple test for
>> RELKIND_RELATION, but I definitely feel that it should be inside
>> heap_truncate. Callers don't need to know about the limited scope
>> of what that does.
>
> I guess you meant inside heap_truncate_one_rel. I updated the patch that
> way, but I wonder if we shouldn't also allow other relkinds that have
> storage which RelationTruncate et al can technically deal with.
Rajkumar pointed out off-list that the patch still remains to be applied.
Considering that there is a planned point release on Nov 8, maybe we
should do something about this?
Thanks,
Amit