| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it> |
| Cc: | robertmhaas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Unlogged tables, persistent kind |
| Date: | 2011-04-25 18:17:05 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTik_QFsbncWLpP+R-K-i2oCJbFL45w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it> wrote:
>> The amount of data loss on a big
>> table will be <1% of the data loss
>>caused by truncating the whole table.
>
> If that 1% is random (not time/transaction related), usually you'd rather have an empty table.
Why do you think it would be random?
> In other words: is a table that is not consistant with anything else in the db useful?
That's too big a leap. Why would it suddenly be inconsistent with the
rest of the database?
Not good arguments.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-04-25 18:18:06 | Re: Unfriendly handling of pg_hba SSL options with SSL off |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-04-25 18:15:16 | Re: Foreign table permissions and cloning |