| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)mail(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: TRUNCATE SERIALIZABLE and frozen COPY |
| Date: | 2012-11-09 20:23:16 |
| Message-ID: | 17719.1352492596@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Just having an option to preload frozen tuples dodges all of these
> issues by throwing our hands up in the air, but it does have the
> advantage of being more general. Even if we do that I'm not sure it
> would be a bad thing to try to solve this issue in a somewhat more
> principled way, but it would surely reduce the urgency.
Yeah. ISTM the whole point of TRUNCATE is "I don't care about
serializability for this operation, give me efficiency instead".
So I see nothing wrong with a (non-default) option for COPY that
similarly trades away some semantic guarantees for efficiency's sake.
There are an awful lot of bulk-load scenarios where people will gladly
take that trade, and are not very interested in halfway points either.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-11-09 20:31:43 | Re: TRUNCATE SERIALIZABLE and frozen COPY |
| Previous Message | Jon Erdman | 2012-11-09 20:22:06 | Re: My first patch! (to \df output) |