Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
