On K, 2005-06-01 at 11:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I think this should be a decision done when creating a table, just like > > TEMP tables. So you always know if a certain table is or is not > > safe/replicated/recoverable. > > This has also the advantage of requiring no changes to actual COPY and > > INSERT commands. > > That doesn't seem right to me; the scenario I envision is that you are > willing to do the initial data loading over again (since you presumably > still have the source data available). But once you've got it loaded > you want full protection.
What I mean, was that as it can't be safely replicated using log- shipping, It should be visible as such. > Perhaps it could work to use an ALTER TABLE command to flip the state. No. It would be the same as flipping a TEMP table to an ordinary table, which we don't support, and IMHO for a good reason > But I'm not really seeing the point compared to treating it as a COPY > option. The point is having a separate (sub)type of storage - non-WAL/non- replicated table and its indexes. > I do not believe that anyone needs this to work on individual > INSERT commands --- if you are after max speed, why aren't you using > COPY? And treating it as an ALTER property opens the possibility of > forgetting to ALTER the table back to normal behavior, which would be > a foot-gun of large caliber indeed :-( That's what I'm trying to avoid - If it is obvious, that the whole table is quasi-stable (in PITR/log-shipping sense) it is more clearly a user choice what kinds of data can be stored there. Same as TEMP tables again. -- Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org