Re: COPY with no WAL, in certain circumstances

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: COPY with no WAL, in certain circumstances
Date: 2007-01-06 17:54:03
Message-ID: 1168106043.20486.4.camel@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches


> > BEGIN;
> > CREATE TABLE foo...
> > INSERT INTO foo VALUES ('1');
> > COPY foo...
> >
> > COMMIT;
>
> On ABORT, the entire table disappears, as well as the INSERT, so I don't
> see any problem. I assume the INSERT is WAL logged.

No I don't see any problems, I am just trying to understand the
boundaries. E.g., is there some weird limitation where if I have any
values in the table before the copy (like the example above) that copy
will go through WAL.

Or in other words, does this patch mean that all COPY execution that is
within a transaction will ignore WAL?

Joshua D. Drake

>
--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-01-06 18:05:01 Re: Parsing ambiguity for ORDER BY ... NULLS FIRST/LAST
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-01-06 17:41:30 Re: COPY with no WAL, in certain circumstances

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Euler Taveira de Oliveira 2007-01-06 18:41:57 Re: COPY with no WAL, in certain circumstances
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-01-06 17:41:30 Re: COPY with no WAL, in certain circumstances