| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Using multi-row technique with COPY |
| Date: | 2005-11-29 20:35:25 |
| Message-ID: | 1133296525.2906.396.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 15:15 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > > Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> Something that would probably be reasonable, and require *no* weird new
> > >> syntax, is to shortcut in a COPY into a table created in the current
> > >> transaction. I believe we still keep a flag in the relcache indicating
> > >> whether that's the case ...
> >
> > > So if the table is created in the current transaction, we don't log?
> >
> > Log, yes, unless it's a temp table. The point is we could avoid taking
> > buffer content locks. Come to think of it, we could implement that
> > trivially in the heapam.c routines; it would then apply to any table
> > update whether generated by COPY or otherwise.
>
> I am confused. This optimization prevents locking, but still requires
> logging?
It minimises *buffer* lwlocks, not data locks.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2005-11-29 20:42:49 | Re: Using multi-row technique with COPY |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2005-11-29 20:35:03 | Re: Using multi-row technique with COPY |