Re: NOLOGGING option, or ? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?
Date
Msg-id 13447.1117634466@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 16:34 +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> There are some other arguments in favour of a LOAD command.... Alon?
>> 
>> We already have LOAD, so you'll have to choose something else :)

> Its annoying, I grant you. :-)

> LOAD 'library' would still need to be the default.

> LOAD LIBRARY 'library' would be the new recommended usage.

> LOAD DATA... would be the new command... with most other options hanging
> off of that. There's no problem with that, since that is then the same
> as Oracle syntax for the load utility.

Uh, what's wrong with adding an option to COPY?  Not like it hasn't got
a ton of 'em already.  The Oracle-compatibility angle doesn't interest
me at all, mainly because I find it highly improbable that we'd be exactly
compatible anyway.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Cost of XLogInsert CRC calculations