| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ravi Krishna <srkrishna1(at)aol(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>,laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at,Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com>,PostgreSQL Mailing Lists <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: COPY threads |
| Date: | 2018-10-10 21:18:10 |
| Message-ID: | 10F9B024-556C-4C8E-B8F5-9461A4696BCA@anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On October 10, 2018 2:15:19 PM PDT, Ravi Krishna <srkrishna1(at)aol(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> pg_restore doesn't take locks on the table for the COPY, it does so
>> because creating the table takes an exclusive lock.
>
>
>Interesting. I seem to recollect reading here that I can't have
>concurrent COPY on the same table because of the lock.
>To give an example:
>
>If I have a large file with say 400 million rows, can I first split it
>into 10 files of 40 million rows each and then fire up 10 different
>COPY sessions , each reading from a split file, but copying into the
>same table. I thought not. It will be great if we can do this.
Yes, you can.
Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ravi Krishna | 2018-10-10 21:19:50 | Re: COPY threads |
| Previous Message | Ravi Krishna | 2018-10-10 21:15:19 | Re: COPY threads |