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

Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hans-Jürgen Schönig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>,Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)surnet(dot)cl>,Alon Goldshuv <agoldshuv(at)greenplum(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?
Date: 2005-06-01 11:54:19
Message-ID: 1117626859.3844.945.camel@localhost.localdomain (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 16:34 +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > There are some other arguments in favour of a LOAD command.... Alon?
> We already have LOAD, so you'll have to choose something else :)

Its annoying, I grant you. :-)

LOAD 'library' would still need to be the default.

LOAD LIBRARY 'library' would be the new recommended usage.

LOAD DATA... would be the new command... with most other options hanging
off of that. There's no problem with that, since that is then the same
as Oracle syntax for the load utility.

Best Regards, Simon Riggs

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Dawid KuroczkoDate: 2005-06-01 12:00:41
Subject: Re: Tablespace-level Block Size Definitions
Previous:From: Mark Cave-AylandDate: 2005-06-01 11:18:12
Subject: Re: Quick-and-dirty compression for WAL backup blocks

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group