On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 4:02 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 3:45 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2025 at 4:31 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Jan 2, 2025 at 2:57 PM vignesh C <vignes...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > Conflict detection of truncated updates is detected as update_missing > >> > and deleted update is detected as update_deleted. I was not sure if > >> > truncated updates should also be detected as update_deleted, as the > >> > document says truncate operation is "It has the same effect as an > >> > unqualified DELETE on each table" at [1]. > >> > > >> > >> This is expected behavior because TRUNCATE would immediately reclaim > >> space and remove all the data. So, there is no way to retain the > >> removed row. > > > > > > I’m not sure whether to call this expected behavior or simply > acknowledge that we have no way to control it. Logically, it would have > been preferable if it behaved like a DELETE, but we are constrained by the > way TRUNCATE works. > > > > I see your point. So, it is probably better to add a Note about this. > +1 -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
