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