| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, marcin mank <marcin(dot)mank(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: unlogged tables |
| Date: | 2010-11-17 19:53:10 |
| Message-ID: | 4CE432A6.9020508@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/17/2010 02:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> [ forgot to comment on this part ]
>
> Andrew Dunstan<andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> To answer another point I see Tom made on the -general list: while
>> individual backends may crash from time to time, crashes of the whole
>> Postgres server are very rare in my experience in production
>> environments.
> Well, if you mean the postmaster darn near never goes down, that's true,
> because we go out of our way to ensure it does as little as possible.
> But that has got zip to do with this discussion, because a backend crash
> has to be assumed to have corrupted unlogged tables. There are some
> folk over in -general who are wishfully thinking that only a postmaster
> crash would lose their unlogged data, but that's simply wrong. Backend
> crashes *will* truncate those tables; there is no way around that. The
> comment I made was that my experience as to how often backends crash
> might not square with production experience --- but you do have to draw
> the distinction between a backend crash and a postmaster crash.
OK. I'd missed that. Thanks for clarifying.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-11-17 19:54:14 | Re: unlogged tables |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-11-17 19:49:36 | Re: git diff script is not portable |