On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 15:08 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote:
> > Thoughts?
>
> Simon already proposed a way of doing this that doesn't require
> explicit user action, which seems preferable to a method that does
> require explicit user action, even though it's a little harder to
> implement. His idea was to store the XID of the process creating the
> table in the pg_class row, which I think is *probably* better than
> your idea of having a process that waits and then flips the flag.
> There are some finicky details though - see previous thread for
> discussion of some of the issues.
My goals include:
* The ability to load into existing tables with existing data
* The ability to load concurrently
My understanding was that the proposal to which you're referring can't
do those things, which seem like major limitations. Did I miss
something?
> In
> many cases it would also be nice to write the tuples pre-frozen, so I
> think we should look for a design that will support that.
You're right, that would be nice.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
