Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 063F82E2D99 for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 02:13:12 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 45821-05 for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 02:12:58 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E066A2E2D92 for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 02:13:08 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id lBF6Cwk1006431; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:12:58 -0500 (EST) To: Josh Berkus cc: Neil Conway , Hannu Krosing , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Simon Riggs Subject: Re: VLDB Features In-reply-to: <200712142034.57808.josh@agliodbs.com> References: <1197371508.4255.1327.camel@ebony.site> <1197677930.1536.18.camel@dell.linuxdev.us.dell.com> <16876.1197680636@sss.pgh.pa.us> <200712142034.57808.josh@agliodbs.com> Comments: In-reply-to Josh Berkus message dated "Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:34:57 -0800" Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:12:58 -0500 Message-ID: <6430.1197699178@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200712/583 X-Sequence-Number: 111872 Josh Berkus writes: > There's no way we can do a transactionless load, then? I'm thinking of the > load-into-new-partition which is a single pass/fail operation. Would > ignoring individual row errors in for this case still cause these kinds of > problems? Given that COPY fires triggers and runs CHECK constraints, there is no part of the system that cannot be exercised during COPY. So I think supposing that we can just deal with some simplified subset of reality is mere folly. regards, tom lane