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: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, 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 14:18:25
Message-ID: 13658.1117635505@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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 ...

> Well, if the table is initally empty, what harm is there in locking the
> table?

You cannot *know* whether it is empty unless you lock the table before
you look.  So your argument is circular.

I think this only makes sense as an explicit option to COPY, one of the
effects of which would be to take a stronger lock than COPY normally does.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2005-06-01 14:24:32
Subject: Re: Quick-and-dirty compression for WAL backup blocks
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2005-06-01 14:14:42
Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?

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