Re: Single-Transaction Utility options - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: Single-Transaction Utility options
Date
Msg-id 1134941301.2964.199.camel@localhost.localdomain
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Single-Transaction Utility options  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-patches
On Sun, 2005-12-18 at 14:04 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > On Sat, 2005-12-17 at 20:03 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> I meant to ask, why is this not the default or only behavior?
>
> > Historically, it didn't work that way, so I hadn't thought to change
> > that behaviour. We could I suppose... but I'm happy with just an option
> > to do --single-transaction.
>
> I believe Peter's question was rhetorical: what he meant to point out
> is that the documentation needs to explain what is the reason for having
> this switch, ie, in what cases would you use it or not use it?
> Just saying what it does isn't really adequate docs.

Well, you know the reason: to allow pg_restore and psql take advantage
of the COPY optimization I'm just about to submit. When that patch is
accepted, I'll update these docs to explain that. But the two patches
are separable, since the -1 still has value anyway.

Best Regards, Simon Riggs


pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Single-Transaction Utility options
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: COPY LOCK for WAL bypass