Re: pg_dump / Unique constraints
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_dump / Unique constraints |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200011221951.OAA28657@candle.pha.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_dump / Unique constraints (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
My feeling is "Let's walk before we run." We need psql \dt to show primary/foreign keys and SERIAL first. > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > >> Why can't COPY recognize for itself that rebuilding the indexes after > >> loading data is a better strategy than incremental index update? > >> (The simplest implementation would restrict this to happen only if the > >> table is empty when COPY starts, which'd be sufficient for pg_dump.) > > > COPY would have to check to see if the table is already empty. > > That's what I said ... or intended to say, anyway. If there's already > data then the tradeoff between incremental update and index rebuild is > not so obvious, and the easiest first implementation would just be to > always do incremental update in that case. Or we could add an option > to the COPY command to tell it which to do, and let the user do the > guessing ;-) > > There'd also be a locking issue, now that I think about it: to do an > index rebuild, we'd have to be sure that no other transaction is adding > data to the table at the same time. So we'd need to get a stronger lock > than a plain write lock to do it that way. A COPY option is sounding > better and better... > > regards, tom lane > -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: