On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 7:48 AM, David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> wrote: > 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.
That is too bad. >> >> > 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/. > Exactly. It was data I could live without and by having schema attached to /dev/null the application did not error out and die. It is a very bad option and being able to turn off logging for a table is a much better one. -- Rob Wultsch wult...@gmail.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
