From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: COPY with hints, rebirth |
Date: | 2012-02-29 21:19:17 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nMJSfsKPkJvCSD7VOB363qjRmDMon__oSeOTtuvUEZKHEg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> But it is very effective at avoiding 4 out of the 5 writes you mention.
>
> For the "common case," would we not want to have (1) [WAL] and (2)
> [Writing the pre-frozen tuple]?
>
> If we only write the tuple (2), and don't capture WAL, then the COPY
> wouldn't be replicable, right?
Well, my answer is a question: how would you like it to work?
The way I coded it is that it will still write WAL if wal_level is
set, so it would be replicable. So it only works when writing to a
newly created table but is otherwise separate to whether WAL is
skipped.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-02-29 21:24:09 | Re: LIST OWNED BY... |
Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2012-02-29 21:19:03 | Re: Collect frequency statistics for arrays |