On Sat, 2005-12-24 at 10:32 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> An ALTER TABLE SET LOGGED/UNLOGGED switch might have some merit, but
> please don't muddy the waters by confusing this with temp-table
I would not be against such a table-level switch, but the exact
behaviour would need to be specified more closely before this became a
TODO item, IMHO.
If someone has a 100 GB table, they would not appreciate the table being
truncated if a transaction to load 1 GB of data aborts, forcing recovery
of the 100 GB table.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Martijn van Oosterhout||Date: 2005-12-26 12:22:12|
|Subject: Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and|
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2005-12-26 11:04:26|
|Subject: Re: Incremental Backup Script|