Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?
Date: 2005-06-01 15:31:31
Message-ID: 14333.1117639891@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> writes:
> I think this should be a decision done when creating a table, just like
> TEMP tables. So you always know if a certain table is or is not
> safe/replicated/recoverable.
> This has also the advantage of requiring no changes to actual COPY and
> INSERT commands.

That doesn't seem right to me; the scenario I envision is that you are
willing to do the initial data loading over again (since you presumably
still have the source data available).  But once you've got it loaded
you want full protection.

Perhaps it could work to use an ALTER TABLE command to flip the state.
But I'm not really seeing the point compared to treating it as a COPY
option.  I do not believe that anyone needs this to work on individual
INSERT commands --- if you are after max speed, why aren't you using
COPY?  And treating it as an ALTER property opens the possibility of
forgetting to ALTER the table back to normal behavior, which would be
a foot-gun of large caliber indeed :-(

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-06-01 15:43:24
Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2005-06-01 15:21:07
Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group