On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 12:36 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fabr=EDzio_de_Royes_Mello?= <fabriziome...@gmail.com> > writes: > > Do you think is difficult to implement "ALTER TABLE ... SET UNLOGGED" > too? > > Thinking in a scope of one GSoC, of course. > > I think it's basically the same thing. You might hope to optimize it; > but you have to create (rather than remove) an init fork, and there's > no way to do that in exact sync with the commit. So for safety I think > you have to copy the data into a new relfilenode. > > Hi all, In the GSoC proposal page [1] I received some suggestions to strech goals: * "ALTER TABLE name SET UNLOGGED". This is essentially the reverse of the core proposal, which is "ALTER TABLE name SET LOGGED". Yes, I think that should definitely be included. It would be weird to have SET LOGGED but not SET UNLOGGED. * Allow unlogged indexes on logged tables. * Implement "ALTER TABLE name SET LOGGED" without rewriting the whole table, when wal_level = minimal. * Allow unlogged materialized views. Comments? [1] http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/proposal/review/student/google/gsoc2014/fabriziomello/5629499534213120 -- Fabrízio de Royes Mello Consultoria/Coaching PostgreSQL >> Timbira: http://www.timbira.com.br >> Blog sobre TI: >> http://frabriziomello.blogspot.com<http://fabriziomello.blogspot.com> >> Perfil Linkedin: http://br.linkedin.com/in/fabriziomello >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/fabriziomello
