Re: Partitioning option for COPY

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Emmanuel Cecchet <manu(at)asterdata(dot)com>
Cc: Emmanuel Cecchet <Emmanuel(dot)Cecchet(at)asterdata(dot)com>, Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Partitioning option for COPY
Date: 2009-11-17 15:55:25
Message-ID: 29197.1258473325@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Emmanuel Cecchet <manu(at)asterdata(dot)com> writes:
> Actually the list is supposed to stay around between statement
> executions. You don't want to restart with a cold cache at every
> statement so I really want this structure to stay in memory at a more
> global level.

Cache? Why do you need a cache for COPY? Repeated bulk loads into the
same table within a single session doesn't seem to me to be a case that
is common enough to justify a cache.

(BTW, the quoted code seems to be busily reinventing OID Lists. Don't
do that.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-11-17 16:13:39 Re: Timezones (in 8.5?)
Previous Message Alex Hunsaker 2009-11-17 15:52:45 Re: Writeable CTE patch