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

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Glen Parker <glenebob(at)nwlink(dot)com> wrote:

> On 11/16/2010 03:24 PM, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>>
>>
> I have been following loosely this discussion on HACKERS, but seem to have
> missed the part about truncating such tables on server restart.
>
> I have an immediate use for unlogged tables (application logs), but having
> them truncate after even a clean server restart would be a show stopper. I
> keep log data for 2 months, and never back it up. Having it disappear after
> a system melt down is acceptable, but not after a clean restart. That would
> be utterly ridiculous!
>

+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.

>
>
> As to the topic of the thread, I think pg_dump needs to dump unlogged
> tables by default.
>
> -1 I disagree. I'm fine with having the loaded weapon pointed at my foot.

--Scott

>
> -Glen
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>