Thank you. Let me test it and see the benefit. We have a use case for this.
> On Oct 10, 2018, at 17:18 , Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > > > On October 10, 2018 2:15:19 PM PDT, Ravi Krishna <srkrish...@aol.com> wrote: >>> >>> 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. > > Yes, you can. > > Andres > -- > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
