On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it> wrote:
>> The amount of data loss on a big
>> table will be <1% of the data loss
>>caused by truncating the whole table.
> If that 1% is random (not time/transaction related), usually you'd rather have an empty table.
Why do you think it would be random?
> In other words: is a table that is not consistant with anything else in the db useful?
That's too big a leap. Why would it suddenly be inconsistent with the
rest of the database?
Not good arguments.
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-04-25 18:18:06|
|Subject: Re: Unfriendly handling of pg_hba SSL options with SSL off |
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-04-25 18:15:16|
|Subject: Re: Foreign table permissions and cloning|