Re: VLDB Features - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: VLDB Features
Date
Msg-id 26961.1197826056@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: VLDB Features  (Hannu Krosing <hannu@skype.net>)
Responses Re: VLDB Features  ("Michał Zaborowski" <michal.zaborowski@gmail.com>)
Re: VLDB Features  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hannu Krosing <hannu@skype.net> writes:
> But can't we _define_ such a subset, where we can do a transactionless
> load ?

Sure ... but you'll find that it's not large enough to be useful.
Once you remove all the interesting consistency checks such as
unique indexes and foreign keys, the COPY will tend to go through
just fine, and then you're still stuck trying to weed out bad data
without very good tools for it.  The only errors we could really
separate out without subtransaction fencing are extremely trivial
ones like too many or too few fields on a line ... which can be
caught with a sed script.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Sullivan
Date:
Subject: Re: Negative LIMIT and OFFSET?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Negative LIMIT and OFFSET?