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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?
Date
Msg-id 21480.1117665427@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?  ("Luke Lonergan" <llonergan@greenplum.com>)
Responses Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?
List pgsql-hackers
"Luke Lonergan" <llonergan@greenplum.com> writes:
> One of the reasons to consider a LOAD DATA command is that we can isolate
> the need for performance improvements and special syntax from the concerns
> of preserving the legacy behavior of COPY for use as the primary mechanism
> for DUMP and RESTORE.

... and instead, define some new behavior that will soon be considered
broken legacy code itself?

There isn't any demand for changing the semantics of COPY, as far as
I've noticed.  If we can make it faster with the same semantics that's
great, but I'm not in favor of inventing an alternate that does almost
the same thing but (eg) breaks backslash handling in the name of speed.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?