Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> Why would the content of the old_table be unreliable? If we've replayed
> logs up to the point of the CTAS then any data that would be visible to
> the CTAS should be fine, no?
> Though, the way Tom put it in one of his replies it sounds like WAL
> doesn't do any kind of statement logging, only data logging. If that's
> the case I'm not sure that the CTAS would actually get replayed. But I
> suspect I'm just misunderstanding...
The CTAS doesn't get logged (nor replayed obviously). What happens is
that the involved files are fsync'ed before transaction commit, AFAIR.
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Ruben Rubio Rey||Date: 2006-03-24 12:41:50|
|Subject: Array performance|
|Previous:||From: Jim C. Nasby||Date: 2006-03-24 10:25:20|
|Subject: Re: Problem with query, server totally unresponsive|
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Jim C. Nasby||Date: 2006-03-24 13:01:21|
|Subject: Re: WAL logging of SELECT ... INTO command|
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2006-03-24 12:32:10|
|Subject: Re: WIP: splitting BLCKSZ|