From: | Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: patch: SQL/MED(FDW) DDL |
Date: | 2010-09-16 02:27:37 |
Message-ID: | 4C918099.1070905@catalyst.net.nz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 16/09/10 14:05, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
>> Hitoshi Harada<umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>
>>> 2010/9/16 Robert Haas<robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>>>
>>>> Oh, key-value store, I bet. Yeah, that would be cool.
>>>>
>>
>>> That's it. Like Redis, Tokyo Cabinet, or something.
>>>
>> What exactly do those get you that an ordinary index, or at worst an
>> index-organized table, doesn't get you?
>>
>
> For example, you can imagine that if
> you have a "sessions" table where you store a record for each
> currently-logged-in user, an unlogged table would be fine. If the
> database crashes and comes back up again, everyone has to log in
> again, but that's a rare event and not a disaster if it happens.
>
>
Or perhaps even a "sessions" type table where the rows are overwritten
in place in some manner, to avoid bloat.
regards
Mark
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-16 02:32:05 | Re: RelationCreateStorage can orphan files |
Previous Message | Itagaki Takahiro | 2010-09-16 02:20:03 | Re: patch: SQL/MED(FDW) DDL |