On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello < fabriziome...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello > > <fabriziome...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> I think this isn't a good design. Per the discussion between Andres > > >> and I, I think that I think you should do is make ALTER TABLE .. SET > > >> LOGGED work just like VACUUM FULL, with the exception that it will set > > >> a different relpersistence for the new relfilenode. If you do it that > > >> way, this will be less efficient, but much simpler, and you might > > >> actually finish it in one summer. > > >> > > > > > > Do it like 'VACUUM FULL' for any wal_level? > > > > Yep. Anything else appears to be a research problem. > > > > I'll change the proposal. Thanks a lot! >
One last question. Do you think is difficult to implement "ALTER TABLE ... SET UNLOGGED" too? Thinking in a scope of one GSoC, of course. 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
