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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?
Date
Msg-id 13658.1117635505@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?
Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?
List pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Not unless you are proposing to change COPY to acquire a lock strong
>> enough to lock out other writers to the table for the duration ...

> Well, if the table is initally empty, what harm is there in locking the
> table?

You cannot *know* whether it is empty unless you lock the table before
you look.  So your argument is circular.

I think this only makes sense as an explicit option to COPY, one of the
effects of which would be to take a stronger lock than COPY normally does.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Quick-and-dirty compression for WAL backup blocks