Re: pgsql: Allow TRUNCATE foo, foo to succeed, per report from Nikhils.
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pgsql: Allow TRUNCATE foo, foo to succeed, per report from Nikhils. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1216249570.19656.441.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pgsql: Allow TRUNCATE foo, foo to succeed, per report from Nikhils. (Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: pgsql: Allow TRUNCATE foo, foo to succeed, per report from Nikhils.
|
Список | pgsql-committers |
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 > > > > 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
В списке pgsql-committers по дате отправления: