Tom Lane wrote: > Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> writes: > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I don't think we need a system-wide setting for that. ?I believe that > >> the unlogged tables I'm working on will handle that case. > > > Aren't they going to be truncated at startup? If the entire system is > > running without WAL, we would only need to do that in case of an > > unclean shutdown wouldn't we? > > The problem with a system-wide no-WAL setting is it means you can't > trust the system catalogs after a crash. Which means you are forced to
True, and in fact any postmaster crash could lead to curruption. > use initdb to recover from any crash, in return for not a lot of savings > (for typical usages where there's not really much churn in the > catalogs). I tend to agree with Robert that a way to not log content > updates for individual user tables is likely to be much more useful in > practice. OK, TODO removed. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + None of us is going to be here forever. + -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
