From: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Lee Kindness" <lkindness(at)csl(dot)co(dot)uk>, "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Bulkloading using COPY - ignore duplicates? |
Date: | 2001-10-01 20:58:26 |
Message-ID: | EKEJJICOHDIEMGPNIFIJKEADFIAA.Inoue@tpf.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane
>
> I said:
> > "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> writes:
> >> I thought that the problem was, that you cannot simply skip the
> >> insert, because at that time the tuple (pointer) might have already
> >> been successfully inserted into an other index/heap, and thus this was
> >> only sanely possible with savepoints/undo.
>
> > Hmm, good point. If we don't error out the transaction then that tuple
> > would become good when we commit. This is nastier than it appears.
>
> On further thought, I think it *would* be possible to do this without
> savepoints,
It's a very well known issue that the partial rolloback functionality is
a basis of this kind of problem and it's the reason I've mentioned that
UNDO functionality has the highest priority. IMHO we shouldn't
implement a partial rolloback functionality specific to an individual
problem.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2001-10-01 21:01:10 | Re: cvs tip problems |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-10-01 20:57:25 | Re: CVS changes |