| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: GSoC proposal - "make an unlogged table logged" |
| Date: | 2014-04-01 16:40:40 |
| Message-ID: | 20140401164040.GD3750@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-04-01 13:37:57 -0300, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
> In the GSoC proposal page [1] I received some suggestions to strech goals:
>
> * "ALTER TABLE name SET UNLOGGED". This is essentially the reverse of the
> core proposal, which is "ALTER TABLE name SET LOGGED". Yes, I think that
> should definitely be included. It would be weird to have SET LOGGED but not
> SET UNLOGGED.
Yes, that makes sense.
> * Allow unlogged indexes on logged tables.
I don't think it's realistic to build the infrastructure necessary for
that as part of gsoc. The reasons have been explained somewhere in this
thread.
> * Implement "ALTER TABLE name SET LOGGED" without rewriting the whole
> table, when wal_level = minimal.
Yea, maybe.
> * Allow unlogged materialized views.
I don't think that's realistic either.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Meskes | 2014-04-01 16:50:36 | Re: using arrays within structure in ECPG |
| Previous Message | Fabrízio de Royes Mello | 2014-04-01 16:37:57 | Re: GSoC proposal - "make an unlogged table logged" |