Re: To log or not to log, that is the question.

> >Would the only benefit be that you could do backups of the logs and > therefore>have incremental backups since your last "big" backup? > > Even an "unlogged" database writes DDL to the logs. And checkpoints are > logged. > > But, if you don't log, your backups will be valid to only the last > checkpoint. > > Use buffered logging - it's fast and reasonably secure. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I cannot believe what I am reading. REASONABLY SECURE!!! That's like saying I've put a lock on my house and put the key under the mat. That's reasonably secure. In the database world I don't believe nay of us can accept being "reasonably secure". We need to be totally secure or totally insecure. At least then we know where we stand! There is only one use for BUFFERED LOGGING - to win benchmarks - nothing more!!! > -- > > Cheers, > > Billy. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ----- > > billy.wheeler@pixie.co.za +27 11 803 > 2151 p.o. box 3463, rivonia, rsa, 2128 +27 83 > 250 2324 > > i'm schizophrenic: my opinions are not those of me > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ----- > Malcolm Weallans Online Database Consultancy Phone 01628-72154 Fax 01628-37463 CIX - onlinedbc