From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)mail(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: TRUNCATE SERIALIZABLE and frozen COPY |
Date: | 2012-11-12 16:20:08 |
Message-ID: | 26259.1352737208@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> So what we're talking about here is a new mode for COPY, that when
>> requested will pre-freeze tuples when loading into a newly
>> created/truncated table. If the table isn't newly created/truncated
>> then we'll just ignore it and continue. I see no need to throw an
>> error, since that will just cause annoying usability issues.
> Actually, why not just have it work always? If people want to load
> frozen tuples into a table that's not newly created/truncated, why not
> let them? Sure, there could be MVCC violations, but as long as the
> behavior is opt-in, who cares? I think it'd be useful to a lot of
> people.
I thought about that too, but there's a big problem. It wouldn't be
just MVCC that would be broken, but transactional integrity: if the
COPY fails partway through, the already-loaded rows still look valid.
The new-file requirement provides a way to roll them back.
I'm willing to have an option that compromises MVCC semantics
transiently, but giving up transactional integrity seems a bit much.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-11-12 16:20:28 | Re: Fwd: question on foreign key lock |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-11-12 16:17:14 | Re: [PATCH] Patch to compute Max LSN of Data Pages |