| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: unlogged tables |
| Date: | 2010-11-16 22:23:35 |
| Message-ID: | 1289946215.10258.2973.camel@jd-desktop |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 00:08 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On tis, 2010-11-16 at 14:00 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > It seems to me
> > that most people using unlogged tables won't want to back them up ...
> > especially since the share lock for pgdump will add overhead for the
> > kinds of high-volume updates people want to do with unlogged tables.
>
> Or perhaps most people will want them backed up, because them being
> unlogged the backup is the only way to get them back in case of a crash?
To me, the use of unlogged tables is going to be for dynamic, volatile
data that can be rebuilt from an integrity set on a crash. Session
tables, metadata tables, dynamic updates that are batched to logged
tables every 10 minutes, that type of thing.
I think Berkus has a good idea on asking general.
JD
>
>
>
--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-11-16 22:26:34 | Re: possible concurrency bug or mistake in understanding read-committed behavior |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-11-16 22:22:35 | Re: unlogged tables |