On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Christopher Browne <cbbro...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> But it is very effective at avoiding 4 out of the 5 writes you mention. > > For the "common case," would we not want to have (1) [WAL] and (2) > [Writing the pre-frozen tuple]? > > If we only write the tuple (2), and don't capture WAL, then the COPY > wouldn't be replicable, right?
Well, my answer is a question: how would you like it to work? The way I coded it is that it will still write WAL if wal_level is set, so it would be replicable. So it only works when writing to a newly created table but is otherwise separate to whether WAL is skipped. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers