On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 12:03:27PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > I would not be against such a table-level switch, but the exact > behaviour would need to be specified more closely before this became a > TODO item, IMHO.
Well, I think at a per table level is the only sensible level. If a table isn't logged, neither are the indexes. After an unclean shutdown the data could be anywhere between OK and rubbish, with no way of finding out which way. > If someone has a 100 GB table, they would not appreciate the table being > truncated if a transaction to load 1 GB of data aborts, forcing recovery > of the 100 GB table. Ah, but wouldn't such a large table be partitioned in such a way that you could have the most recent partition having the loaded data. Personally, I think these "shared temp tables" have more applications than meet the eye. I've had systems with cache tables which could be wiped on boot. Though I think my preference would be to TRUNCATE rather than DROP on unclean shutdown. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a > tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone > else to do the other 95% so you can sue them.
pgptUR80IVCyx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
