Re: GSoC proposal - "make an unlogged table logged"

On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 12:36 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fabr=EDzio_de_Royes_Mello?= <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>
> writes:
> > Do you think is difficult to implement "ALTER TABLE ... SET UNLOGGED"
> too?
> > Thinking in a scope of one GSoC, of course.
>
> I think it's basically the same thing. You might hope to optimize it;
> but you have to create (rather than remove) an init fork, and there's
> no way to do that in exact sync with the commit. So for safety I think
> you have to copy the data into a new relfilenode.
>
>
Hi all,

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.

* Allow unlogged indexes on logged tables.

* Implement "ALTER TABLE name SET LOGGED" without rewriting the whole
table, when wal_level = minimal.

* Allow unlogged materialized views.

Comments?

[1]
http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/proposal/review/student/google/gsoc2014/fabriziomello/5629499534213120

--
Fabrízio de Royes Mello
Consultoria/Coaching PostgreSQL
>> Timbira: http://www.timbira.com.br
>> Blog sobre TI: http://frabriziomello.blogspot.com<http://fabriziomello.blogspot.com>
>> Perfil Linkedin: http://br.linkedin.com/in/fabriziomello
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/fabriziomello