Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> > > BEGIN;
> > > CREATE TABLE foo...
> > > INSERT INTO foo VALUES ('1');
> > > COPY foo...
> > >
> > > COMMIT;
> >
> > On ABORT, the entire table disappears, as well as the INSERT, so I don't
> > see any problem. I assume the INSERT is WAL logged.
>
> No I don't see any problems, I am just trying to understand the
> boundaries. E.g., is there some weird limitation where if I have any
> values in the table before the copy (like the example above) that copy
> will go through WAL.
>
> Or in other words, does this patch mean that all COPY execution that is
> within a transaction will ignore WAL?
Yes, because it is possible to do in all cases.
--
Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
