Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: NOLOGGING option, or ? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1117645228.3844.1016.camel@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: NOLOGGING option, or ? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 11:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Hannu Krosing <hannu@skype.net> 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. Yes, thats the scenario. Believe me, I prefer less code, but I think general feeling now is that we must provide a data safe solution to the performance challenge. > Perhaps it could work to use an ALTER TABLE command to flip the state. > But I'm not really seeing the point compared to treating it as a COPY > option. 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 :-( Oh no, not the foot gun again. I surrender. Best Regards, Simon Riggs
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: