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

Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, take 3

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, take 3
Date: 2007-06-26 17:23:05
Message-ID: 24054.1182878585@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Who's "we"?  AFAICS, CVS HEAD will treat a large copy the same as any
>> other large heapscan.

> Umm, I'm talking about populating a table with COPY *FROM*. That's not a 
> heap scan at all.

No wonder we're failing to communicate.  I assumed you were talking
about copy-to-file.  Copy-from-file is going to be creating WAL entries
hence the no-checkpoint case doesn't apply anyway, no?

[ thinks ... ]  Oh, you must be positing the case where the recently
added skip-WAL-if-table-is-new-in-this-transaction optimization applies.
Well, that thing could probably do with some more work anyway (I wonder
why it's using shared buffers at all anymore).  I don't really think
that case should be allowed to drive our thinking about how the bgwriter
should work.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2007-06-26 17:35:32
Subject: Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, take 3
Previous:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2007-06-26 16:38:14
Subject: Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, take 3

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