Re: unlogged tables
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Kenneth Marshall <ktm@rice.edu>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>, marcin mank <marcin.mank@gmail.com>, Andy Colson <andy@squeakycode.net>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2010-11-17T19:53:10Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 11/17/2010 02:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > [ forgot to comment on this part ] > > Andrew Dunstan<andrew@dunslane.net> writes: >> To answer another point I see Tom made on the -general list: while >> individual backends may crash from time to time, crashes of the whole >> Postgres server are very rare in my experience in production >> environments. > Well, if you mean the postmaster darn near never goes down, that's true, > because we go out of our way to ensure it does as little as possible. > But that has got zip to do with this discussion, because a backend crash > has to be assumed to have corrupted unlogged tables. There are some > folk over in -general who are wishfully thinking that only a postmaster > crash would lose their unlogged data, but that's simply wrong. Backend > crashes *will* truncate those tables; there is no way around that. The > comment I made was that my experience as to how often backends crash > might not square with production experience --- but you do have to draw > the distinction between a backend crash and a postmaster crash. OK. I'd missed that. Thanks for clarifying. cheers andrew