From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: switch UNLOGGED to LOGGED |
Date: | 2011-04-08 13:01:24 |
Message-ID: | BANLkTikZx3kTA5TXfcLb=7k+KGTTOJ1xqg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 6:01 AM, Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it> wrote:
> I read the discussion at
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-01/msg00315.php
>
> From what I can understand, going from/to unlogged to/from logged in
> the wal_level == minimal case is not too complicated.
>
> Suppose I try to write a patch that allows
>
> ALTER TABLE tablename SET LOGGED (or UNLOGGED)
> (proper sql wording to be discussed...)
>
> only in the wal_level == minimal case: would it be accepted as a
> "first step"? Or rejected because it doesn't allow it in the other
> cases?
I'm pretty sure we wouldn't accept a patch for a feature that would
only work with wal_level=minimal, but it might be a useful starting
point for someone else to keep hacking on.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2011-04-08 13:22:36 | Re: workaround for expensive KNN? |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-04-08 12:56:54 | Re: pg_upgrade bug found! |