On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 6:01 AM, Leonardo Francalanci <m_li...@yahoo.it> wrote: > I read the discussion at > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-01/msg00315.php > > From what I can understand, going from/to unlogged to/from logged in > the wal_level == minimal case is not too complicated. > > Suppose I try to write a patch that allows > > ALTER TABLE tablename SET LOGGED (or UNLOGGED) > (proper sql wording to be discussed...) > > only in the wal_level == minimal case: would it be accepted as a > "first step"? Or rejected because it doesn't allow it in the other > cases?
I'm pretty sure we wouldn't accept a patch for a feature that would only work with wal_level=minimal, but it might be a useful starting point for someone else to keep hacking on. -- 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
