| From: | Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | switch UNLOGGED to LOGGED |
| Date: | 2011-04-08 10:01:38 |
| Message-ID: | 831695.27653.qm@web29019.mail.ird.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
I read the discussion at
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-01/msg00315.php
From what I can understand, going from/to unlogged to/from logged in
the wal_level == minimal case is not too complicated.
Suppose I try to write a patch that allows
ALTER TABLE tablename SET LOGGED (or UNLOGGED)
(proper sql wording to be discussed...)
only in the wal_level == minimal case: would it be accepted as a
"first step"? Or rejected because it doesn't allow it in the other
cases?
From what I got in the discussion, handling the other wal_level cases
can be very complicated (example: the issues in case "we *crash*
without writing an abort record").
Leonardo
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2011-04-08 11:08:13 | Re: pg_upgrade bug found! |
| Previous Message | Brendan Jurd | 2011-04-08 09:00:22 | Re: Failed assert ((data - start) == data_size) in heaptuple.c |