Simon Riggs wrote: > On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 18:51 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Please let me back up and ask a more simplistic question. I understand > > the idea of allowing COPY to insert rows with less locking, but I am > > wondering about the NOLOGGING idea. On commit, we must guarantee that > > all the rows are in the table, so what advantage is there to a NOLOGGING > > option? > > We would need to flush all the blocks in the table out of cache at > commit time, for that table only. (As with CTAS, CIDX). > > > To allow a full discussion, I'll separate the various ideas: > 1. COPY using bulk copy mode
What is "bulk copy mode"? Full page loading? > 2. NOLOGGING Means flush/fsync table pages on commit. > 3. Created in this transaction Reduces locking? > 4. ERRORTABLES > 5. Uniqueness violations > > Right now, I think you have reasonable objections/input to (2) that we > should discuss more before agreeing a way forward. I would aim to do (1) > first, then return with a full and much better explained proposal for > (2) for us to discuss, since (2) depends upon (1) somewhat. > > (3) and (4) seem to have been generally accepted, but (5) seems not > viable with present thinking. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
