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 23:02:17
Message-ID: 200506012302.j51N2H921211@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > One idea would be to look at the table file size first. If it has zero
> > blocks, lock the table and if it still has zero blocks, do the no-WAL
> > copy.
>
> I think that's a bad idea. It would make the behavior unpredictable
> --- sometimes a COPY will take an exclusive lock, and other times not;
> and the reason why is at a lower semantic level than the user is
> supposed to know about.
>
> Before you say "this is not important", consider the nontrivial risk
> that the stronger lock will cause a deadlock failure. I don't think
> that it's acceptable for lock strength to be unpredictable.

Yea, but you are only doing the lock if the table is zero pages.
Doesn't that help? Maybe not.

I do like the LOCK keyword if we have to use one to enable this
functionality, but I am suspecting people will want this functionality
in pg_dump output. How do we do that? Just make it the default for
pg_dump output?

--
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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2005-06-01 23:06:07 Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2005-06-01 23:00:34 Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?