Re: PATCH: Exclude unlogged tables from base backups

Hi,

On 2017-12-12 17:49:54 -0500, David Steele wrote:
> Including unlogged relations in base backups takes up space and is wasteful
> since they are truncated during backup recovery.
>
> The attached patches exclude unlogged relations from base backups except for
> the init fork, which is required to recreate the main fork during recovery.

How do you reliably identify unlogged relations while writes are going
on? Without locks that sounds, uh, nontrivial?

> I decided not to try and document unlogged exclusions in the continuous
> backup documentation yet (they are noted in the protocol docs). I would
> like to get some input on whether the community thinks this is a good idea.
> It's a non-trivial procedure that would be easy to misunderstand and does
> not affect the quality of the backup other than using less space. Thoughts?

Think it's a good idea, I've serious concerns about practicability of a
correct implementation though.

- Andres