On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 12:03:27PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> 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.
Well, I think at a per table level is the only sensible level. If a
table isn't logged, neither are the indexes. After an unclean shutdown
the data could be anywhere between OK and rubbish, with no way of
finding out which way.
> 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.
Ah, but wouldn't such a large table be partitioned in such a way that
you could have the most recent partition having the loaded data.
Personally, I think these "shared temp tables" have more applications
than meet the eye. I've had systems with cache tables which could be
wiped on boot. Though I think my preference would be to TRUNCATE rather
than DROP on unclean shutdown.
Have a nice day,
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a
> tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone
> else to do the other 95% so you can sue them.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Pavel Stehule||Date: 2005-12-26 12:29:19|
|Subject: Re: Fixing row comparison semantics|
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2005-12-26 12:03:27|
|Subject: Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and|