| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> | 
|---|---|
| To: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: COPY FREEZE has no warning | 
| Date: | 2013-01-24 22:09:51 | 
| Message-ID: | 20130124220951.GD21914@momjian.us | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 02:02:46PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> As a reminder, COPY FREEZE still does not issue any warning/notice if
> the freezing does not happen:
> 
>       Requests copying the data with rows already frozen, just as they
>       would be after running the <command>VACUUM FREEZE</> command.
>       This is intended as a performance option for initial data loading.
>       Rows will be frozen only if the table being loaded has been created
>       in the current subtransaction, there are no cursors open and there
>       are no older snapshots held by this transaction. If those conditions
>       are not met the command will continue without error though will not
>       freeze rows. It is also possible in rare cases that the request
>       cannot be honoured for internal reasons, hence <literal>FREEZE</literal>
>       is more of a guideline than a hard rule.
> 
>       Note that all other sessions will immediately be able to see the data
>       once it has been successfully loaded. This violates the normal rules
>       of MVCC visibility and by specifying this option the user acknowledges
>       explicitly that this is understood.
> 
> Didn't we want to issue the user some kind of feedback?
As no one wanted to write this patch, I have developed the attached
version.
-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com
  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size | 
|---|---|---|
| freeze.diff | text/x-diff | 2.0 KB | 
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-01-24 22:12:02 | Re: [HACKERS] BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus | 
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2013-01-24 21:57:15 | autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables |