From: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> > I think we can discuss this in a separate thread and see what other > hackers think.
OK, unless we won't get stuck in the current direction. (Our goal is to not degrade in performance, but to outperform serial execution, isn't it?) > If the idea is to give the user control of whether or not to use the > separate RING BUFFER for bulk inserts/writes, then how about giving it > as a rel option? Currently BAS_BULKWRITE (GetBulkInsertState), is > being used by CTAS, Refresh Mat View, Table Rewrites (ATRewriteTable) > and COPY. Furthermore, we could make the rel option an integer and > allow users to provide the size of the ring buffer they want to choose > for a particular bulk insert operation (of course with a max limit > which is not exceeding the shared buffers or some reasonable amount > not exceeding the RAM of the system). I think it's not a table property but an execution property. So, it'd be appropriate to control it with the SET command, just like the DBA sets work_mem and maintenance_work_mem for specific maintenance operations. I'll stop on this here... Regards Takayuki Tsunakawa
