From: | "Karsten Hilbert" <Karsten(dot)Hilbert(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Survey on backing up unlogged tables: help us with PostgreSQL development! |
Date: | 2010-11-16 23:24:19 |
Message-ID: | 20101116232419.323170@gmx.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
> PostgreSQL 9.1 is likely to have, as a feature, the ability to create
> tables which are "unlogged", meaning that they are not added to the
> transaction log, and will be truncated (emptied) on database restart.
> Such tables are intended for highly volatile, but not very valuable,
> data, such as session statues, application logs, etc.
>
> The question is, how would you, as a DBA, expect pg_dump backups to
> treat unlogged tables? Backing them up by default has the potential to
> both cause performance drag on the unlogged table and make your backups
> take longer unless you remember to omit them. Not backing them up by
> default has the drawback that if you forget --include-unlogged switch,
> and shut the database down, any unlogged data is gone. How would you
> *expect* unlogged tables to behave?
ALTER DATABASE ... SET PG_DUMP_INCLUDE_UNLOGGED TO ON/OFF
with default OFF.
That way I can think about it once per database *before* I am in
the situation when I regret forgetting.
(pg_dump would still support --include-unlogged, defaulting to the
database default)
Karsten
--
Neu: GMX De-Mail - Einfach wie E-Mail, sicher wie ein Brief!
Jetzt De-Mail-Adresse reservieren: http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/demail
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | zhong ming wu | 2010-11-16 23:41:53 | port warded (iptables) postgres |
Previous Message | Jorge Arévalo | 2010-11-16 23:21:03 | Re: Programming error: Out of Memory |