| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WAL logging of SELECT ... INTO command |
| Date: | 2006-03-24 12:39:02 |
| Message-ID: | 20060324123902.GA14217@surnet.cl |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches pgsql-performance |
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> Why would the content of the old_table be unreliable? If we've replayed
> logs up to the point of the CTAS then any data that would be visible to
> the CTAS should be fine, no?
>
> Though, the way Tom put it in one of his replies it sounds like WAL
> doesn't do any kind of statement logging, only data logging. If that's
> the case I'm not sure that the CTAS would actually get replayed. But I
> suspect I'm just misunderstanding...
The CTAS doesn't get logged (nor replayed obviously). What happens is
that the involved files are fsync'ed before transaction commit, AFAIR.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-03-24 13:01:21 | Re: WAL logging of SELECT ... INTO command |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-03-24 12:32:10 | Re: WIP: splitting BLCKSZ |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ruben Rubio Rey | 2006-03-24 12:41:50 | Array performance |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-03-24 10:25:20 | Re: Problem with query, server totally unresponsive |