Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>
Cc: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>,"Alon Goldshuv" <agoldshuv(at)greenplum(dot)com>,pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?
Date: 2005-06-01 22:37:07
Message-ID: 21480.1117665427@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> writes:
> One of the reasons to consider a LOAD DATA command is that we can isolate
> the need for performance improvements and special syntax from the concerns
> of preserving the legacy behavior of COPY for use as the primary mechanism
> for DUMP and RESTORE.

... and instead, define some new behavior that will soon be considered
broken legacy code itself?

There isn't any demand for changing the semantics of COPY, as far as
I've noticed.  If we can make it faster with the same semantics that's
great, but I'm not in favor of inventing an alternate that does almost
the same thing but (eg) breaks backslash handling in the name of speed.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Hannu KrosingDate: 2005-06-01 22:37:51
Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-06-01 22:32:32
Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group