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

• Re: NOLOGGING option, or ? at 2005-06-01 22:32:32 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

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