| From: | Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: COPY with no WAL, in certain circumstances |
| Date: | 2007-01-06 21:53:05 |
| Message-ID: | 20070106215305.GA3281@timbira.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > IMHO, this deserves an GUC parameter (use_wal_in_copy?). Because a lot
> > of people use COPY because it's faster than INSERT but expects that it
> > will be in WAL. The default would be use_wal_in_copy = true.
>
> That I don't think makes sense. A copy is an all or nothing option, if a
> copy fails in the middle the whole thing is rolled back.
>
I was worried about PITR, but Simon answers my question: PITR enables so
uses WAL.
--
Euler Taveira de Oliveira
http://www.timbira.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Page | 2007-01-06 21:54:32 | Re: 8.3 pending patch queue |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-01-06 21:41:04 | Re: 8.3 pending patch queue |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-01-06 22:28:39 | Re: [PATCHES] Patch to log usage of temporary files |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-01-06 21:40:16 | Re: COPY with no WAL, in certain circumstances |