On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 2:27 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 12:49 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> One idea I had was to allow the COPY optimization only if the heap file is
>>> physically zero-length at the time the COPY starts.
>
>> This seems not helpful for the case where TRUNCATE is executed
>> before COPY. No?
>
> Huh? The heap file would be zero length in that case.
>
>> So, if COPY is executed multiple times at the same transaction,
>> only first COPY can be optimized?
>
> This is true, and I don't think we should care, especially not if we're
> going to take risks of incorrect behavior in order to optimize that
> third-order case. The fact that we're dealing with this bug at all should
> remind us that this stuff is harder than it looks. I want a simple,
> reliable, back-patchable fix, and I do not believe that what you are
> suggesting would be any of those.
Maybe I'm missing something. But I start wondering why TRUNCATE
and INSERT (or even all the operations on the table created at
the current transaction) need to be WAL-logged while COPY can be
optimized. If no WAL records are generated on that table, the problem
we're talking about seems not to occur. Also this seems safe and
doesn't degrade the performance of data loading. Thought?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
