Re: asynchronous commit

Andreas, I think UNLOGGED would be something different but I'm not totally
clear. However, it seems to me that an unlogged table would simply
disappear (be truncated) after a server crash. That means instead of maybe
loosing a record or two that I could loose a ton or records. But maybe my
understanding is off.

On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Andreas Kretschmer <
akretschmer(at)spamfence(dot)net> wrote:

> Robert DiFalco <robert(dot)difalco(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > I have several tables that I use for logging and real-time stats. These
> are not
> > critical and since they are a bottleneck I want transactions against
> them to
> > always be asynchronous. Is there a way to specify this at a table level
> or do I
> > have to make sure to call set synchronous_commit='off' every time I
> insert or
> > update to them? And presumably remember to turn it back on again for
> safety.
>
> I think, you can use unlogged tables instead.
>
>
> Andreas
> --
> Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely
> unintentional side effect. (Linus Torvalds)
> "If I was god, I would recompile penguin with --enable-fly." (unknown)
> Kaufbach, Saxony, Germany, Europe. N 51.05082°, E 13.56889°
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>