Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>,Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)surnet(dot)cl>,Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?
Date: 2005-06-01 13:58:53
Message-ID: 13424.1117634333@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> Sorry to followup to my own message, but it occurs to me that COPY could be
> made to automatically do this for the case of an empty destination table too.

Not unless you are proposing to change COPY to acquire a lock strong
enough to lock out other writers to the table for the duration ...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-06-01 14:01:06
Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-06-01 13:57:02
Subject: Re: Physical Tlist optimization still possible?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group