Yes,
TRUNCATE foo;
TRUNCATE foo;
works well.
So why do we need
TRUNCATE foo, foo;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 16:24 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Logically, you should be able to truncate a table twice.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 16:54 +0000, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Log Message:
> > > -----------
> > > Allow TRUNCATE foo, foo to succeed, per report from Nikhils.
> >
> > What's the use case for this?
> >
> > It's not compatibility, is it? Why would you ever do that? If you did,
> > why would you expect it to work? Seems more likely to be a user error
> > than a real request.
> >
> > Should it throw one trigger call, or two?
> >
> > BTW, create index foo_idx on foo (col1, col1) fails also with a strange
> > error message. Should we silently merge columns and ignore that also?
> >
> > ERROR: duplicate key value violates unique constraint
> > "pg_attribute_relid_attnam_index"
> >
> > Seems easier to throw errors for weird DDL like this.
> >
> > e.g. create index concurrently on foo (col1); creates an index called
> > "concurrently" on foo, while holding locks...
> >
> > --
> > Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
> > PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
>
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support