| From: | Ravi Krishna <srkrishna1(at)aol(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>, laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at, Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Mailing Lists <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: COPY threads |
| Date: | 2018-10-10 21:15:19 |
| Message-ID: | C61F9A0D-477C-4F9D-8C1E-2B6CBBEF7C99@aol.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
>
> pg_restore doesn't take locks on the table for the COPY, it does so
> because creating the table takes an exclusive lock.
Interesting. I seem to recollect reading here that I can't have concurrent COPY on the same table because of the lock.
To give an example:
If I have a large file with say 400 million rows, can I first split it into 10 files of 40 million rows each and then fire up 10 different
COPY sessions , each reading from a split file, but copying into the same table. I thought not. It will be great if we can do this.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-10-10 21:18:10 | Re: COPY threads |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-10-10 21:07:29 | Re: COPY threads |