On 6/1/05, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Jochem van Dieten wrote:
>> Why only on an empty table? What is the problem with bypassing WAL on
>> any table as long as all files of that table are fsync'ed before
> Because adding rows to a table might modify existing pages, and if the
> COPY fails, you have to restore those pages to a consistent state, and
> make sure they are recovered for partial page writes, which we can't do
> without WAL. With an initially empty table, you can just throw away the
> file system file.
Thank you for the explanation, but I am afraid I still don't get it.
COPY can either fail and do a normal rollback, in which case there is
no problem because the xid never made it to the xlog. So I take it you
are talking about a hard crash (pull the plug) somewhere during the
actual writing to disk. In that case you have updated several pages
and overwritten the free space with new tuples. But you have not
overwritten live tuples, so why would you need to restore them? I
mean, didn't PostgreSQL < 7.1 work without a WAL at all?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2005-06-01 16:14:05|
|Subject: Re: Can we simplify win32 threading code |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2005-06-01 15:55:46|
|Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ? |