Greetings, * tsunakawa.ta...@fujitsu.com (tsunakawa.ta...@fujitsu.com) wrote: > From: Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> > > The argument here seems to stem from the idea that issueing a 'TRUNCATE' > > inside the transaction before starting the 'COPY' command is 'too hard'. > > > I could be wrong and perhaps opinions will change in the future, but it > > really > > doesn't seem like the there's much support for adding a new WAL level just > > to > > avoid doing the TRUNCATE. Appealing to what other database systems > > support can be helpful in some cases but that's usually when we're looking > > at a > > new capability which multiple other systems have implemented. This isn't > > actually a new capability at all- the WAL level that you're looking for > > already > > exists and already gives the optimization you're looking for, as long as > > you issue > > a TRUNCATE at the start of the transaction. > > No, we can't ask using TRUNCATE because the user wants to add data to a table.
First- what are you expecting would actually happen during crash recovery in this specific case with your proposed new WAL level? Second, use partitioning, or unlogged tables (with the patch discussed elsewhere to allow flipping them to logged without writing the entire thing to WAL). Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
