Re: Single-Transaction Utility options

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Single-Transaction Utility options
Date: 2005-12-18 21:28:21
Message-ID: 1134941301.2964.199.camel@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

On Sun, 2005-12-18 at 14:04 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On Sat, 2005-12-17 at 20:03 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> I meant to ask, why is this not the default or only behavior?
>
> > Historically, it didn't work that way, so I hadn't thought to change
> > that behaviour. We could I suppose... but I'm happy with just an option
> > to do --single-transaction.
>
> I believe Peter's question was rhetorical: what he meant to point out
> is that the documentation needs to explain what is the reason for having
> this switch, ie, in what cases would you use it or not use it?
> Just saying what it does isn't really adequate docs.

Well, you know the reason: to allow pg_restore and psql take advantage
of the COPY optimization I'm just about to submit. When that patch is
accepted, I'll update these docs to explain that. But the two patches
are separable, since the -1 still has value anyway.

Best Regards, Simon Riggs

In response to

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2005-12-18 21:32:09 Re: COPY LOCK for WAL bypass
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2005-12-18 20:51:23 Re: Single-Transaction Utility options