Re: unlogged tables

On 11/16/2010 05:12 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 11/16/10 2:08 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On tis, 2010-11-16 at 14:00 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>> It seems to me
>>> that most people using unlogged tables won't want to back them up ...
>>> especially since the share lock for pgdump will add overhead for the
>>> kinds of high-volume updates people want to do with unlogged tables.
>> Or perhaps most people will want them backed up, because them being
>> unlogged the backup is the only way to get them back in case of a crash?
> Yeah, hard to tell, really.   Which default is less likely to become a
> foot-gun?
>
> Maybe it's time for a survey on -general.
>

I would argue pretty strongly that backing something up is much less 
likely to be a foot-gun than not backing it up, and treating unlogged 
tables the same as logged tables for this purpose is also much less 
likely to be a foot-gun. As I pointed out upthread, we already have a 
mechanism for not backing up selected objects. I'd much rather have a 
rule that says "everything gets backed up by default" than one that says 
"everything gets backed up by default except unlogged tables".

cheers

andrew