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

Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, 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 14:01:06
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> 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.

Uh, what's wrong with adding an option to COPY?  Not like it hasn't got
a ton of 'em already.  The Oracle-compatibility angle doesn't interest
me at all, mainly because I find it highly improbable that we'd be exactly
compatible anyway.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-06-01 14:05:13
Subject: Re: Cost of XLogInsert CRC calculations
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-06-01 13:58:53
Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group