From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
To: Jim C. Nasby <jnasby@pervasive.com>
Cc: Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq@cs.toronto.edu>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: WAL logging of SELECT ... INTO command
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:39:02 -0400
Message-ID: <20060324123902.GA14217@surnet.cl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060324100731.GO90527@pervasive.com>
References: <20060321122211.GU15742@pervasive.com>
<1142973230.24487.501.camel@localhost.localdomain>
<dvqqi5$1nmv$1@news.hub.org>
<20060324100731.GO90527@pervasive.com>
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> Why would the content of the old_table be unreliable? If we've replayed
> logs up to the point of the CTAS then any data that would be visible to
> the CTAS should be fine, no?
>
> Though, the way Tom put it in one of his replies it sounds like WAL
> doesn't do any kind of statement logging, only data logging. If that's
> the case I'm not sure that the CTAS would actually get replayed. But I
> suspect I'm just misunderstanding...
The CTAS doesn't get logged (nor replayed obviously). What happens is
that the involved files are fsync'ed before transaction commit, AFAIR.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: alvherre@commandprompt.com, jnasby@pervasive.com, zhouqq@cs.toronto.edu
Subject: Re: WAL logging of SELECT ... INTO command
In-Reply-To: <20060324123902.GA14217@surnet.cl>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox