| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)mail(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: TRUNCATE SERIALIZABLE and frozen COPY |
| Date: | 2012-11-12 19:28:47 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nML0QrMQp_HC1wAAunyO4mxYwErXC4q6QRAv_CYgQEN6KQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12 November 2012 16:22, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> But I guess that raises the question - should COPY (FREEZE) silently
> ignore the option for not-new relfilenodes, or should it error out?
> Simon proposed the former, but I'm wondering if the latter would be
> better.
It's got some complex pre-conditions, so having scripts fail because
you mis-specified FREEZE would be annoying.
The option indicates "I accept the potential MVCC violation", not "it
will always freeze".
If there is a better name...
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-11-12 19:39:09 | Re: Inadequate thought about buffer locking during hot standby replay |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-11-12 19:21:28 | Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol |