| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: unlogged tables |
| Date: | 2010-11-16 22:22:35 |
| Message-ID: | 7439.1289946155@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:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I think allowing pg_dump to dump the data in an unlogged table is not
>> only reasonable, but essential.
> Yeah, you'd have to allow a flag to control the behavior. And in that
> case I'd rather the flag have a single default rather than different
> defaults depending on whether or not individual tables were selected.
> Something like --omit-unlogged-data.
As long as the default is to include the data, I wouldn't object to
having such a flag. A default that drops data seems way too
foot-gun-like.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2010-11-16 22:23:35 | Re: unlogged tables |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-11-16 22:22:02 | Re: unlogged tables |