Re: Add support for COPY TO in tablesync for partitioned tables.

From: Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Add support for COPY TO in tablesync for partitioned tables.
Date: 2025-11-11 03:37:01
Message-ID: CAFPTHDYNdgca-sJq7rEyFtaYU4C-Rcc7uXMu+eUzis+qsAY_-Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 2:19 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> In the commit message, you mentioned: "Performance tests show it's
> faster than the COPY (SELECT ...) TO variant as it avoids the
> overheads of query processing and sending results to the COPY TO
> command.". Can you share the performance data to substantiate this
> point?
>

This was based on the tests done in the original thread [1] and [2]

[1]- https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/174219852967.294107.6195385625494034792.pgcf%40coridan.postgresql.org
[2]- https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALdSSPi5GUx1XtVTEOmvZ73MDM9HrpzE7L_Dp55z30wfp7KMvw%40mail.gmail.com

regards,
Ajin Cherian
Fujitsu Australia

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Smith 2025-11-11 03:44:54 Re: Is this a typo?
Previous Message Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) 2025-11-11 03:36:32 RE: Newly created replication slot may be invalidated by checkpoint