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