Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> One idea would be to look at the table file size first. If it has zero
> blocks, lock the table and if it still has zero blocks, do the no-WAL
> copy.
I think that's a bad idea. It would make the behavior unpredictable
--- sometimes a COPY will take an exclusive lock, and other times not;
and the reason why is at a lower semantic level than the user is
supposed to know about.
Before you say "this is not important", consider the nontrivial risk
that the stronger lock will cause a deadlock failure. I don't think
that it's acceptable for lock strength to be unpredictable.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
