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

Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(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 14:12:18
Message-ID: 200506011412.j51ECIT20344@candle.pha.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> 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 ...

Well, if the table is initally empty, what harm is there in locking the
table?  How many people query the table while it is being loaded, and
because the transaction isn't committed, the table is empty to everyone
else anyway.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-06-01 14:12:34
Subject: Re: Quick-and-dirty compression for WAL backup blocks
Previous:From: Jochem van DietenDate: 2005-06-01 14:07:37
Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?

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