Re: asynchronous commit
| От | Robert DiFalco |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: asynchronous commit |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAAXGW-x8xURF64Re2RtVqQ-tsoWKjJvSn47+zviYuVjmWkW=Xw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: asynchronous commit (Andreas Kretschmer <akretschmer@spamfence.net>) |
| Ответы |
Re: asynchronous commit
|
| Список | pgsql-general |
Andreas, I think UNLOGGED would be something different but I'm not totally clear. However, it seems to me that an unlogged table would simply disappear (be truncated) after a server crash. That means instead of maybe loosing a record or two that I could loose a ton or records. But maybe my understanding is off.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Andreas Kretschmer <akretschmer@spamfence.net> wrote:
I think, you can use unlogged tables instead.Robert DiFalco <robert.difalco@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have several tables that I use for logging and real-time stats. These are not
> critical and since they are a bottleneck I want transactions against them to
> always be asynchronous. Is there a way to specify this at a table level or do I
> have to make sure to call set synchronous_commit='off' every time I insert or
> update to them? And presumably remember to turn it back on again for safety.
Andreas
--
Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely
unintentional side effect. (Linus Torvalds)
"If I was god, I would recompile penguin with --enable-fly." (unknown)
Kaufbach, Saxony, Germany, Europe. N 51.05082°, E 13.56889°
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: