Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I thought he was asking for a solution to the problem of WALInsertLock
>> contention. In any case, we have "WAL bypass on a table by table basis"
>> now, don't we?
> If we do I'm ignorant of it ;-) How do we say "Never WAL this table"?
Make it a temporary table.
The more useful case for data load is "create or truncate it in the
same transaction", of course.
regards, tom lane