Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: "PostgreSQL Advocacy" <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory
Date: 2011-05-03 18:52:19
Message-ID: 4DC00893020000250003D1F4@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers

Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:

> They are *not* similar to in-memory table, in that they are
> *always* written to disk.

I thought we avoided flushing them to disk on checkpoint, or did
that idea fall flat? Does the background writer flush them? If
neither of these happens, then we can legitimately call them
in-memory, as long as we point out that they are saved on a clean
shutdown for reload on startup, and may be flushed from RAM at times
when other objects need the memory.

-Kevin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2011-05-03 18:53:19 Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory
Previous Message Dave Page 2011-05-03 18:49:35 Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2011-05-03 18:53:19 Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2011-05-03 18:51:35 Re: A small step towards more organized beta testing