From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: VLDB Features |
Date: | 2007-12-15 11:10:30 |
Message-ID: | 1197717031.7974.23.camel@hannu-laptop |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Ühel kenal päeval, L, 2007-12-15 kell 01:12, kirjutas Tom Lane:
> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> > There's no way we can do a transactionless load, then? I'm thinking of the
> > load-into-new-partition which is a single pass/fail operation. Would
> > ignoring individual row errors in for this case still cause these kinds of
> > problems?
>
> Given that COPY fires triggers and runs CHECK constraints, there is no
> part of the system that cannot be exercised during COPY. So I think
> supposing that we can just deal with some simplified subset of reality
> is mere folly.
But can't we _define_ such a subset, where we can do a transactionless
load ?
I don't think that most DW/VLDB schemas fire complex triggers or custom
data-modifying functions inside CHECK's.
Then we could just run the remaining simple CHECK constraints ourselves
and not abort on non-check, but just log the rows ?
The COPY ... WITH ERRORS TO ... would essentially become a big
conditional RULE through which the incoming data is processed.
------------------
Hannu
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Albert Cervera i Areny | 2007-12-15 12:32:23 | Re: WORM and Read Only Tables (v0.1) |
Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-12-15 09:28:53 | Re: Negative LIMIT and OFFSET? |