[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       postgresql-general
Subject:    Re: [HACKERS] COPY with hints, rebirth
From:       Simon Riggs <simon () 2ndQuadrant ! com>
Date:       2012-02-29 21:19:17
Message-ID: CA+U5nMJSfsKPkJvCSD7VOB363qjRmDMon__oSeOTtuvUEZKHEg () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.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

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]