On 09/30/2014 02:39 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: >> On 09/30/2014 07:15 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > >>> At the risk of pushing people away from this POV, I'll point out >>> that this is somewhat similar to what we do for unlogged bulk loads >>> -- if all the conditions for doing it the fast way are present, we >>> do it the fast way; otherwise it still works, but slower. >> >> Except that switching between fast/slow bulk loads affects *only* the >> speed of loading, not the locking rules. Having a statement silently >> take a full table lock when we were expecting it to be concurrent >> (because, for example, the index got rebuilt and someone forgot the >> UNIQUE) violates POLA from my perspective. > > I would not think that an approach which took a full table lock to > implement the more general case would be accepted.
Why not? There are certainly cases ... like bulk loading ... where users would find it completely acceptable. Imagine that you're merging 3 files into a single unlogged table before processing them into finished data. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
