On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 09:04:08AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:56 PM, Rob Wultsch <wult...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 1. Could the making a table logged be a non-exclusive lock if the > > ALTER is allowed to take a full checkpoint? > > No, that doesn't solve either of the two problems I described, > unfortunately. > > > 2. Unlogged to logged has giant use case. > > Agree. > > > 3. In MySQL I have had to ALTER tables to engine BLACKHOLE because > > they held data that was not vital, but the server was out of IO. > > Going logged -> unlogged has a significant placed, I think. > > Interesting. So you'd change a logged table into an unlogged table > to cut down on I/O, and take the risk of losing the data if the > server went down?
BLACKHOLE is a "storage engine" that's equivalent to /dev/null, so it wasn't a risk /per se/. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
