Re: unlogged tables - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Joshua D. Drake
Subject Re: unlogged tables
Date
Msg-id 1289946215.10258.2973.camel@jd-desktop
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: unlogged tables  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 00:08 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On tis, 2010-11-16 at 14:00 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > It seems to me
> > that most people using unlogged tables won't want to back them up ...
> > especially since the share lock for pgdump will add overhead for the
> > kinds of high-volume updates people want to do with unlogged tables.
> 
> Or perhaps most people will want them backed up, because them being
> unlogged the backup is the only way to get them back in case of a crash?

To me, the use of unlogged tables is going to be for dynamic, volatile
data that can be rebuilt from an integrity set on a crash. Session
tables, metadata tables, dynamic updates that are batched to logged
tables every 10 minutes, that type of thing.

I think Berkus has a good idea on asking general.

JD


> 
> 
> 

-- 
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: unlogged tables
Next
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: Re: possible concurrency bug or mistake in understanding read-committed behavior