Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.187]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BAEC2E02E4 for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:45:09 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 44723-01 for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:45:01 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B6BE2E02D2 for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:45:03 -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 lBF7ivX9007908; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 02:44:57 -0500 (EST) To: NikhilS cc: "Neil Conway" , "Hannu Krosing" , "Josh Berkus" , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, "Simon Riggs" Subject: Re: VLDB Features In-reply-to: References: <1197371508.4255.1327.camel@ebony.site> <200712111053.11178.josh@agliodbs.com> <1197416461.29432.10.camel@dell.linuxdev.us.dell.com> <1197636530.7974.16.camel@hannu-laptop> <1197660423.1536.8.camel@dell.linuxdev.us.dell.com> <15007.1197674561@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1197677930.1536.18.camel@dell.linuxdev.us.dell.com> Comments: In-reply-to NikhilS message dated "Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:02:51 +0530" Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 02:44:56 -0500 Message-ID: <7907.1197704696@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200712/587 X-Sequence-Number: 111876 NikhilS writes: > Any errors which occur before doing the heap_insert should not require > any recovery according to me. A sufficient (though far from all-encompassing) rejoinder to that is "triggers and CHECK constraints can do anything". > The overhead of having a subtransaction per row is a very valid concern. But > instead of using a per insert or a batch insert substraction, I am > thinking that we can start off a subtraction and continue it till we > encounter a failure. What of failures that occur only at (sub)transaction commit, such as foreign key checks? regards, tom lane