Jesper Krogh <jes...@krogh.cc> wrote: > On 2011-04-25 20:00, Leonardo Francalanci wrote: >>> The amount of data loss on a big table will be <1% of the data >>> loss caused by truncating the whole table. >> >> If that 1% is random (not time/transaction related), usually >> you'd rather have an empty table. In other words: is a table >> that is not consistant with anything else in the db useful? >> > Depends on the application, if it serves for pure caching then it > is fully acceptable and way better than dropping everything. I buy this *if* we can be sure we're not keeping information which is duplicated or mangled, and if we can avoid crashing the server to a panic because of broken pointers or other infelicities. I'm not sure that can't be done, but I don't think I've heard an explanation of how that could be accomplished, particularly without overhead which would wipe out the performance benefit of unlogged tables. (And without a performance benefit, what's the point?) -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
