| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: unlogged tables |
| Date: | 2010-11-16 20:50:42 |
| Message-ID: | 5521.1289940642@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>> I think if you do a regular backup of the complete database, unlogged
>> tables should come out empty, but if you specifically request a dump of
>> it, it shouldn't.
> Oh, wow. That seems confusing.
I don't like it either.
I think allowing pg_dump to dump the data in an unlogged table is not
only reasonable, but essential. Imagine that someone determines that
his reliability needs will be adequately served by unlogged tables plus
hourly backups. Now you're going to tell him that that doesn't work
because pg_dump arbitrarily excludes the data in unlogged tables?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-11-16 20:51:00 | Re: GiST insert algorithm rewrite |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-11-16 20:46:15 | Re: GiST insert algorithm rewrite |