| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: VLDB Features |
| Date: | 2007-12-15 04:34:57 |
| Message-ID: | 200712142034.57808.josh@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom,
> I think such an approach is doomed to hopeless unreliability. There is
> no concept of an error that doesn't require a transaction abort in the
> system now, and that doesn't seem to me like something that can be
> successfully bolted on after the fact. Also, there's a lot of
> bookkeeping (eg buffer pins) that has to be cleaned up regardless of the
> exact nature of the error, and all those mechanisms are hung off
> transactions.
There's no way we can do a transactionless load, then? I'm thinking of the
load-into-new-partition which is a single pass/fail operation. Would
ignoring individual row errors in for this case still cause these kinds of
problems?
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2007-12-15 05:10:35 | Re: EXPLAIN ANALYZE printing logical and hardware I/O per-node |
| Previous Message | Trent Shipley | 2007-12-15 01:30:16 | Re: VLDB Features |