On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Leonardo Francalanci <m_li...@yahoo.it> wrote: >> The amount of data loss on a big >> table will be <1% of the data loss >>caused by truncating the whole table. > > If that 1% is random (not time/transaction related), usually you'd rather > have an empty table.
Why do you think it would be random? > In other words: is a table that is not consistant with anything else in the > db useful? That's too big a leap. Why would it suddenly be inconsistent with the rest of the database? Not good arguments. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
