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

Re: COPY with hints, rebirth

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: COPY with hints, rebirth
Date: 2012-02-29 21:19:17
Message-ID: CA+U5nMJSfsKPkJvCSD7VOB363qjRmDMon__oSeOTtuvUEZKHEg@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> But it is very effective at avoiding 4 out of the 5 writes you mention.
>
> For the "common case," would we not want to have (1) [WAL] and (2)
> [Writing the pre-frozen tuple]?
>
> If we only write the tuple (2), and don't capture WAL, then the COPY
> wouldn't be replicable, right?

Well, my answer is a question: how would you like it to work?

The way I coded it is that it will still write WAL if wal_level is
set, so it would be replicable. So it only works when writing to a
newly created table but is otherwise separate to whether WAL is
skipped.

-- 
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2012-02-29 21:24:09
Subject: Re: LIST OWNED BY...
Previous:From: Alexander KorotkovDate: 2012-02-29 21:19:03
Subject: Re: Collect frequency statistics for arrays

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