From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Using multi-row technique with COPY |
Date: | 2005-11-29 19:30:28 |
Message-ID: | 9120.1133292628@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> One idea for default behavior would be to use EXCLUSIVE when the table
> is zero size. I think that would do pg_dump and most of the user cases,
> and of course users could override the default by using a keyword. We
> could emit a NOTICE if an an exclusive lock is used without an EXCLUSIVE
> keyword. One problem I see is that there is no way to insure zero size
> without a lock that blocks other writers. Is that reliable?
No, and if you try to upgrade your lock after checking, you create a
deadlock problem.
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 ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-11-29 19:50:35 | Re: Using multi-row technique with COPY |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-11-29 19:17:53 | Re: Using multi-row technique with COPY |