Re: Remove xmin and cmin from frozen tuples
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date: 2005-09-02T20:27:59Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes: > On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 04:02:08PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> It has to be a *new* table, not an *empty* table. If it's already >> visible to other xacts then somebody else could insert into it in >> parallel with you, because COPY doesn't take an exclusive lock. > What about the indexes? Logging one of the inserters and not the other > is certain to corrupt the whole thing. Good point, but that fits in just fine with the restriction to just-created tables. >> Contrariwise, it doesn't really matter (I think) if there are WAL-logged >> records already in the table and COPY is adding more that aren't logged. > Only if the page is locked in a fashion that the bulk loader can't > insert tuples into a page that the other transaction is using. What other transaction? The point I was making is that BEGIN; CREATE TABLE ... INSERT ... COPY ... is still optimizable. There isn't going to be anyone competing with the COPY while it runs. regards, tom lane