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

Re: Bulkloading using COPY - ignore duplicates?

From: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Lee Kindness" <lkindness(at)csl(dot)co(dot)uk>, "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Bulkloading using COPY - ignore duplicates?
Date: 2001-10-01 20:58:26
Message-ID: EKEJJICOHDIEMGPNIFIJKEADFIAA.Inoue@tpf.co.jp (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane
>
> I said:
> > "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> writes:
> >> I thought that the problem was, that you cannot simply skip the
> >> insert, because at that time the tuple (pointer) might have already
> >> been successfully inserted into an other index/heap, and thus this was
> >> only sanely possible with savepoints/undo.
>
> > Hmm, good point.  If we don't error out the transaction then that tuple
> > would become good when we commit.  This is nastier than it appears.
>
> On further thought, I think it *would* be possible to do this without
> savepoints,

It's a very well known issue that the partial rolloback functionality is
a basis of this kind of problem and it's the reason I've mentioned that
UNDO functionality has the highest priority. IMHO we shouldn't
implement a partial rolloback functionality specific to an individual
problem.

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Thomas LockhartDate: 2001-10-01 21:01:10
Subject: Re: cvs tip problems
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-10-01 20:57:25
Subject: Re: CVS changes

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