Re: GSoC proposal - "make an unlogged table logged"

On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
wrote:
>
> On 2014-03-03 12:08:26 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
> > > <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > > Is the TODO item "make an unlogged table logged" [1] a good GSoC
project?
> > >
> > > I'm pretty sure we found some problems in that design that we couldn't
> > > figure out how to solve. I don't have a pointer to the relevant
> > > -hackers discussion off-hand, but I think there was one.
> >
> > ISTR the discussion going something along the lines of "we'd have to WAL
> > log the entire table to do that, and if we have to do that, what's the
> > point?".
>
> I don't see that as a particularly problematic problem. The primary
> reason to want to convert a unlogged to a logged table probably is that
> it's easier to do so than to recreate the table + dependencies. Also the
> overhead of logging full pages will be noticeably smaller than the
> overhead of adding all rows individually, even if using
> heap_multi_insert().
>

Do you know some similar in the source code?

Regards,

--
Fabrízio de Royes Mello
Consultoria/Coaching PostgreSQL
>> Timbira: http://www.timbira.com.br
>> Blog sobre TI: http://fabriziomello.blogspot.com
>> Perfil Linkedin: http://br.linkedin.com/in/fabriziomello
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/fabriziomello