X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78A0B9DC82F for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:39:03 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 97273-09 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:39:06 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from mx2.surnet.cl (mx2.surnet.cl [216.155.73.181]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B48FE9DC813 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:39:00 -0400 (AST) Received: from unknown (HELO cluster.surnet.cl) ([216.155.73.165]) by mx2.surnet.cl with ESMTP; 24 Mar 2006 08:39:03 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.02,198,1139194800"; d="scan'208"; a="38452042:sNHT18358840" Received: from alvh.no-ip.org (201.221.200.224) by cluster.surnet.cl (7.0.043) (authenticated as alvherre@surnet.cl) id 43A978FD00BCDDF2; Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:39:03 -0400 Received: by alvh.no-ip.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 14611C3A2D0; Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:39:03 -0400 (CLT) Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:39:02 -0400 From: Alvaro Herrera To: "Jim C. Nasby" Cc: Qingqing Zhou , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: WAL logging of SELECT ... INTO command Message-ID: <20060324123902.GA14217@surnet.cl> Mail-Followup-To: "Jim C. Nasby" , Qingqing Zhou , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org References: <20060321122211.GU15742@pervasive.com> <1142973230.24487.501.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060324100731.GO90527@pervasive.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060324100731.GO90527@pervasive.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060126 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.578 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.341, DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE=0.479, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST=1.44] X-Spam-Score: 1.578 X-Spam-Level: * X-Archive-Number: 200603/486 X-Sequence-Number: 17923 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