Hi!
Thanks all for your input...
At 09:15 17.08.00 -0700, you wrote:
[...]
> > Question: would it work to use a transaction to perform the rename?
> >
> > i.e.: continuous insert into table 'main' from client.
> >
> > From somewhere else, execute:
> >
> > begin;
> > alter table main rename to vac_main;
> > create table main (...);
> > end;
> >
> > would the inserter notice this? Read: would ALL inserts AT ANY TIME
> succeed?
>
>Unfortunately -- no. Also, bad things can happen if the transaction
>errors since the rename happens immediately. There's been talk on
>-hackers about this subject in the past.
>
>However, you might be able to do something like this, but
>I'm not sure it'll work and it's rather wierd:
>
>Have three tables you work with, a and b and c
>
>Set up rule on a to change insert to insert on b.
>Insert into a.
>When you want to vacuum, change the rule to insert to c.
>Vacuum b
>Change rule back
>move rows from a and c into b
>vacuum c
[...]
Good idea - I immediately tested it - rules rule! That seems to work perfectly,
and the client doesn't even see it happen (except for 'selects', one would
have to setup
a rule to return something meaningful then...).
I did:
Two tables, a and b.
Normally, insert into a.
When Vacuuming starts, create rule on a to insert into b
Vacuum a
drop rule
copy records from b to a
vacuum b
Why did you suppose three tables? Did I overlook something?
Greetings, Joerg
+------**** Science & Engineering Applications GmbH ****------+
| |
| Joerg Hessdoerfer |
| Leading SW developer Phone: +49 (0)2203-962211 |
| S.E.A GmbH Fax: -962212 |
| D-51147 Koeln Internet: joerg.hessdoerfer@sea-gmbh.com |
| http://www.sea-gmbh.com |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
