Re: Survey on backing up unlogged tables: help us with PostgreSQL development!

From: "Karsten Hilbert" <Karsten(dot)Hilbert(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Survey on backing up unlogged tables: help us with PostgreSQL development!
Date: 2010-11-16 23:24:19
Message-ID: 20101116232419.323170@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

> PostgreSQL 9.1 is likely to have, as a feature, the ability to create
> tables which are "unlogged", meaning that they are not added to the
> transaction log, and will be truncated (emptied) on database restart.
> Such tables are intended for highly volatile, but not very valuable,
> data, such as session statues, application logs, etc.
>
> The question is, how would you, as a DBA, expect pg_dump backups to
> treat unlogged tables? Backing them up by default has the potential to
> both cause performance drag on the unlogged table and make your backups
> take longer unless you remember to omit them. Not backing them up by
> default has the drawback that if you forget --include-unlogged switch,
> and shut the database down, any unlogged data is gone. How would you
> *expect* unlogged tables to behave?

ALTER DATABASE ... SET PG_DUMP_INCLUDE_UNLOGGED TO ON/OFF

with default OFF.

That way I can think about it once per database *before* I am in
the situation when I regret forgetting.

(pg_dump would still support --include-unlogged, defaulting to the
database default)

Karsten
--
Neu: GMX De-Mail - Einfach wie E-Mail, sicher wie ein Brief!
Jetzt De-Mail-Adresse reservieren: http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/demail

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message zhong ming wu 2010-11-16 23:41:53 port warded (iptables) postgres
Previous Message Jorge Arévalo 2010-11-16 23:21:03 Re: Programming error: Out of Memory