Re: unlogged tables

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 November 2010 23:12:10 Josh Berkus wrote:
>> On 11/16/10 2:08 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> > On tis, 2010-11-16 at 14:00 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> >> It seems to me
>> >> that most people using unlogged tables won't want to back them up ...
>> >> especially since the share lock for pgdump will add overhead for the
>> >> kinds of high-volume updates people want to do with unlogged tables.
>> >
>> > Or perhaps most people will want them backed up, because them being
>> > unlogged the backup is the only way to get them back in case of a crash?
>>
>> Yeah, hard to tell, really.   Which default is less likely to become a
>> foot-gun?
> Well. Maybe both possibilities are just propable(which I think is unlikely),
> but the different impact is pretty clear.
>
> One way your backup runs too long and too much data changes, the other way
> round you loose the data which you assumed safely backuped.
>
> Isn't that a *really* easy decision?

Yeah, it seems pretty clear to me.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company