On 11/16/2010 05:12 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 11/16/10 2:08 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On tis, 2010-11-16 at 14:00 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
It seems to me
that most people using unlogged tables won't want to back them up ...
especially since the share lock for pgdump will add overhead for the
kinds of high-volume updates people want to do with unlogged tables.
Or perhaps most people will want them backed up, because them being
unlogged the backup is the only way to get them back in case of a crash?
Yeah, hard to tell, really. Which default is less likely to become a
foot-gun?
Maybe it's time for a survey on -general.
I would argue pretty strongly that backing something up is much less
likely to be a foot-gun than not backing it up, and treating unlogged
tables the same as logged tables for this purpose is also much less
likely to be a foot-gun. As I pointed out upthread, we already have a
mechanism for not backing up selected objects. I'd much rather have a
rule that says "everything gets backed up by default" than one that says
"everything gets backed up by default except unlogged tables".
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
