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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
