| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)surnet(dot)cl>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: NOLOGGING option, or ? |
| Date: | 2005-06-01 14:18:25 |
| Message-ID: | 13658.1117635505@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Not unless you are proposing to change COPY to acquire a lock strong
>> enough to lock out other writers to the table for the duration ...
> Well, if the table is initally empty, what harm is there in locking the
> table?
You cannot *know* whether it is empty unless you lock the table before
you look. So your argument is circular.
I think this only makes sense as an explicit option to COPY, one of the
effects of which would be to take a stronger lock than COPY normally does.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2005-06-01 14:24:32 | Re: Quick-and-dirty compression for WAL backup blocks |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-06-01 14:14:42 | Re: NOLOGGING option, or ? |