>>> I'm trying to figure out how that's actually different from WAL..? It
>>> sounds like you'd get what you're suggesting with simply increasing the
>>> checkpoint timeout until the WAL stream is something which you can keep
>>> up with. Of course, the downside there is that you'd have to replay
>>> more WAL when recovering.
>>
>> Yeah, at first I thought using WAL was a good idea. However I realized
>> that the problem using WAL is we cannot backup unlogged tables because
>> they are not written to WAL.
>
> How does replication handle that?
>
> Because I doubt that's an issue only with backups.
Unlogged tables are not replicated to streaming replication
standbys. It is clearly stated in the doc.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp
