| From: | Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Scott Mead <scott(at)scottrmead(dot)com>, Glen Parker <glenebob(at)nwlink(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, Karsten Hilbert <Karsten(dot)Hilbert(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Survey on backing up unlogged tables: help us with PostgreSQL development! |
| Date: | 2010-11-17 16:16:48 |
| Message-ID: | 4CE3FFF0.2050306@pinpointresearch.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 11/16/2010 07:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Man, the number of misunderstandings in this thread is staggering....
>
First, I have plenty of processes that I would immediately convert to
using this (and, FWIW, none of them would benefit from preserving data
across restarts). But I have some questions that may expose my
misunderstandings:
1. Would there be restrictions preventing a standard table from having a
FK or other constraint that depends on an unlogged table? If not, it
seems like there could be an unwanted ripple-effect from lost of the
unlogged table.
2. Would it be possible to accidentally mix logged and unlogged tables
in an inheritance chain? What would be the impact?
3. If unlogged data is included in a dump (my vote is no), would this
lead to inconsistent behavior between dumps taken from a master and
dumps taken from a hot-standby?
4. Would it be reasonable for temporary-tables to be unlogged by default?
Cheers,
Steve
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ivan Voras | 2010-11-17 16:22:51 | Re: Survey on backing up unlogged tables: help us with PostgreSQL development! |
| Previous Message | Fredric Fredricson | 2010-11-17 16:14:33 | Re: The first dedicated PostgreSQL forum |