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 19:56:39 |
Message-ID: | 9367.1133294199@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:
> 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.
> Yes, I guess, but do we want to propogate that into pg_dump output? I
> would think not.
Exactly my point; we don't have to change any syntax, so pg_dump
doesn't care.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-11-29 20:15:21 | Re: Using multi-row technique with COPY |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-11-29 19:50:35 | Re: Using multi-row technique with COPY |