| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Scott Mead <scott(at)scottrmead(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Glen Parker <glenebob(at)nwlink(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, Karsten Hilbert <Karsten(dot)Hilbert(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Survey on backing up unlogged tables: help us with PostgreSQL development! |
| Date: | 2010-11-17 01:15:49 |
| Message-ID: | 11342.1289956549@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Scott Mead <scott(at)scottrmead(dot)com> writes:
> +1 -- Is there a technical reason to do a TRUNCATE on restart? I'd feel
> better if I could just have unlogged tables that survive unless something
> like a power-outage etc... I'm in the exact same boat here, lots of big
> logging tables that need to survive reboot, but are frustrating when it
> comes to WAL generation.
Keep in mind that these tables are *not* going to survive any type of
backend crash. Maybe my perceptions are colored because I deal with
Postgres bugs all the time, but I think of backend crashes as pretty
common, certainly much more common than an OS-level crash. I'm afraid
you may be expecting unlogged tables to be significantly more robust
than they really will be.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2010-11-17 01:17:42 | strange row count estimates with conditions on multiple column |
| Previous Message | Scott Mead | 2010-11-17 01:05:55 | Re: port warded (iptables) postgres |