On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On 2014-03-03 12:08:26 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello > > > <fabriziome...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Is the TODO item "make an unlogged table logged" [1] a good GSoC project? > > > > > > I'm pretty sure we found some problems in that design that we couldn't > > > figure out how to solve. I don't have a pointer to the relevant > > > -hackers discussion off-hand, but I think there was one. > > > > ISTR the discussion going something along the lines of "we'd have to WAL > > log the entire table to do that, and if we have to do that, what's the > > point?". > > I don't see that as a particularly problematic problem. The primary > reason to want to convert a unlogged to a logged table probably is that > it's easier to do so than to recreate the table + dependencies. Also the > overhead of logging full pages will be noticeably smaller than the > overhead of adding all rows individually, even if using > heap_multi_insert(). >
Do you know some similar in the source code? Regards, -- Fabrízio de Royes Mello Consultoria/Coaching PostgreSQL >> Timbira: http://www.timbira.com.br >> Blog sobre TI: http://fabriziomello.blogspot.com >> Perfil Linkedin: http://br.linkedin.com/in/fabriziomello >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/fabriziomello
