Re: unlogged tables
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2010-11-16T22:41:59Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes: >> Yeah, you'd have to allow a flag to control the behavior. And in that >> case I'd rather the flag have a single default rather than different >> defaults depending on whether or not individual tables were selected. >> Something like --omit-unlogged-data. > Are you sure we don't want to default the other way? It seems to me > that most people using unlogged tables won't want to back them up ... That's a very debatable assumption. You got any evidence for it? Personally, I don't think pg_dump should ever default to omitting data. > especially since the share lock for pgdump will add overhead for the > kinds of high-volume updates people want to do with unlogged tables. Say what? pg_dump just takes AccessShareLock. That doesn't add any overhead. regards, tom lane