Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] COPY with no WAL, in certain circumstances

2007-01-07 Thread Simon Riggs
On Sun, 2007-01-07 at 11:29 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > ... The active-portal kluge that you've just > > mentioned is nothing but a kluge, proving that you thought of some cases > > where it would fail. But I doubt you thought of everything. > > BTW, a sufficient counterexample for that

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] COPY with no WAL, in certain circumstances

2007-01-07 Thread Simon Riggs
On Sun, 2007-01-07 at 11:14 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Sun, 2007-01-07 at 03:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I think you just talked yourself out of getting this patch applied. > > > Maybe; what would be your explanation? > > The main reason is that y

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] COPY with no WAL, in certain circumstances

2007-01-07 Thread Tom Lane
"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There is no failure condition where the rows continue to exist > on disk && the table relfilenode shows a committed transaction pointing > to the file containing the marked-valid-but-actually-not rows. What of BEGIN; CREATE TABLE foo ...;

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] COPY with no WAL, in certain circumstances

2007-01-07 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: > ... The active-portal kluge that you've just > mentioned is nothing but a kluge, proving that you thought of some cases > where it would fail. But I doubt you thought of everything. BTW, a sufficient counterexample for that kluge is that neither SPI or SQL-function execution use a sepa

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] COPY with no WAL, in certain circumstances

2007-01-07 Thread Tom Lane
"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, 2007-01-07 at 03:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> I think you just talked yourself out of getting this patch applied. > Maybe; what would be your explanation? The main reason is that you were guilty of false advertising. This patch was described as

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] COPY with no WAL, in certain circumstances

2007-01-07 Thread Simon Riggs
On Sun, 2007-01-07 at 12:59 +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 11:46:29AM +, Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Sun, 2007-01-07 at 03:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > > "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > The patch sets HEAP_XMIN_COMMITTED on all of the rows loaded

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] COPY with no WAL, in certain circumstances

2007-01-07 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 11:46:29AM +, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Sun, 2007-01-07 at 03:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The patch sets HEAP_XMIN_COMMITTED on all of the rows loaded by COPY as > > > well. > > > > I think you just talked yourself out of