| From: | "tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'Peter Smith' <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | RE: Implement UNLOGGED clause for COPY FROM |
| Date: | 2020-09-10 09:16:23 |
| Message-ID: | TYAPR01MB299011CD2A25066D5CC161F6FE270@TYAPR01MB2990.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
From: Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>
> Earlier, Osumi-san was rejecting the idea of using ALTER TABLE tbl SET
> UNLOGGED on basis that it is too time consuming for large data to
> switch the table modes [1].
> Doesn't wal_level=none essentially just behave as if every table was
> UNLOGGED; not just the ones we are loading?
>
> Doesn't wal_level=none come with all the same limitations/requirements
> (full daily backups/restarts etc) that the UNLOGGED TABLE would also
> have?
ALTER TABLE takes long time proportional to the amount of existing data, while wal_level = none doesn't.
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-09-10 09:17:44 | Re: Bug in logical decoding of in-progress transactions |
| Previous Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2020-09-10 09:10:37 | Re: Minor cleanup of partbounds.c |