Re: unlogged tables

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: unlogged tables
Date: 2010-11-14 00:59:35
Message-ID: 26619.1289696375@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Here is a series of three patches related to unlogged tables.
> 1. The first one (relpersistence-v1) is a mostly mechanical patch that
> replaces pg_class.relistemp (a Boolean) with pg_class.relpersistence
> (a character), so that we can support more than two values. BE SURE
> YOU INITDB, since the old catalog format will not work with this patch
> applied.

While I'm griping ... is there a really good reason to do it that way,
rather than adding a new column? This will break clients that are
looking at relistemp. Maybe there aren't any, but I wouldn't bet on
that, and it doesn't seem like you're buying a lot by creating this
incompatibility. I would also argue that temp-ness is a distinct
concept from logged-ness.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-11-14 01:07:52 Re: POSIX shared memory redux
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-11-14 00:54:11 Re: unlogged tables