| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rob Wultsch <wultsch(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: making an unlogged table logged |
| Date: | 2011-01-05 14:04:08 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimf_NxQma7tB4MFhrhtW-=rVwk5x6arPk8Bvap0@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:56 PM, Rob Wultsch <wultsch(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 1. Could the making a table logged be a non-exclusive lock if the
> ALTER is allowed to take a full checkpoint?
No, that doesn't solve either of the two problems I described, unfortunately.
> 2. Unlogged to logged has giant use case.
Agree.
> 3. In MySQL I have had to ALTER tables to engine BLACKHOLE because
> they held data that was not vital, but the server was out of IO. Going
> logged -> unlogged has a significant placed, I think.
Interesting. So you'd change a logged table into an unlogged table to
cut down on I/O, and take the risk of losing the data if the server
went down?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-01-05 14:05:33 | Re: Streaming replication as a separate permissions |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2011-01-05 13:54:18 | Streaming base backups |