On Tuesday 16 November 2010 23:30:29 Andres Freund wrote: > On Tuesday 16 November 2010 23:12:10 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? > > Well. Maybe both possibilities are just propable(which I think is > unlikely), but the different impact is pretty clear. > > One way your backup runs too long and too much data changes, the other way > round you loose the data which you assumed safely backuped. > > Isn't that a *really* easy decision? Oh, and another argument: Which are you more likely to discover: a backup that runs consistenly running for a short time or a backup thats getting slower and larger...
Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers