From: | Melvin Davidson <melvin6925(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jerome Wagner <jerome(dot)wagner(at)laposte(dot)net> |
Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: question on error during COPY FROM |
Date: | 2016-09-17 14:25:57 |
Message-ID: | CANu8FixopUpYK-GxdnAYo6NiZnhPhx7jsArhTZC+YOJH5kJsPw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 6:04 AM, Jerome Wagner <jerome(dot)wagner(at)laposte(dot)net>
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> in the documentation I read
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/sql-copy.html
>
>
> COPY stops operation at the first error. This should not lead to problems
> in the event of a COPY TO, but the target table will already have
> received earlier rows in a COPY FROM. These rows will not be visible or
> accessible, but they still occupy disk space. This might amount to a
> considerable amount of wasted disk space if the failure happened well into
> a large copy operation. You might wish to invoke VACUUM to recover the
> wasted space.
>
> does that mean that I should always execute a VACUUM to recover the wasted
> space when an error is triggered or will the auto-vacuum mechanism do the
> job by itself ?
>
> Thanks
> Jerome
>
*>but the target table will already have received earlier rows in a COPY
FROM*
*No, that is not what happens. The entire copy is not permanently written
to disk until a COMMIT or the entire statement is completed (;). On first
error, a ROLLBACK is done so there is no wasted space. That being said, it
is always good practice to schedule a VACUUM ANALYZE (but not FULL) in the
off hours to insure a cleanup and fresh statistics. *
--
*Melvin Davidson*
I reserve the right to fantasize. Whether or not you
wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andomar | 2016-09-18 11:17:15 | SO question about disappearing row |
Previous Message | Nikolai Zhubr | 2016-09-17 13:14:37 | Re: Nonblocking libpq + openssl = ? |