On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> 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?
Yeah, it seems pretty clear to me. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
