"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, 2007-01-07 at 03:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> I think you just talked yourself out of getting this patch applied.
> Maybe; what would be your explanation? The main reason is that you were guilty of false advertising. This patch was described as being an application of a known-and-agreed-safe optimization to a new case, viz letting COPY into a new table use a whole-file fsync instead of WAL-logging individual records. I suspect most people didn't look at it closely because it sounded like nothing very new; I certainly didn't. Now we find out that you've also decided you can subvert the MVCC system in the name of speed. This is NOT something the hackers community has discussed and agreed to, and I for one doubt that it's safe. The active-portal kluge that you've just mentioned is nothing but a kluge, proving that you thought of some cases where it would fail. But I doubt you thought of everything. In any case the correct method for dealing with a new optimization of questionable safety or value is to submit it as a separate patch, not to hope that the committer will fail to notice that the patch doesn't do what you said it did. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend