On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Scott Mead <sc...@scottrmead.com> writes: > > +1 -- Is there a technical reason to do a TRUNCATE on restart? I'd feel > > better if I could just have unlogged tables that survive unless something > > like a power-outage etc... I'm in the exact same boat here, lots of big > > logging tables that need to survive reboot, but are frustrating when it > > comes to WAL generation. > > Keep in mind that these tables are *not* going to survive any type of > backend crash. Not surviving a crash is fine. IMHO, if we'd lose data in myisam files, I'm happy to lose them on pg nologging tables. I just want it to survive a stop / start operation. The benefits (think of multi-host syslog consolidation with FTS <drools> ) on these tables FAR outweigh the off-chance that a crash will cause me some heartache. > Maybe my perceptions are colored because I deal with > Postgres bugs all the time, but I think of backend crashes as pretty > common, certainly much more common than an OS-level crash. I'm afraid > you may be expecting unlogged tables to be significantly more robust > than they really will be. > Bugs? What bugs :) Honestly, I've only had a couple of *Prod* crashes (knocks on wood), but the need to restart occurs every now and then. --Scott > > regards, tom lane >
