Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory

On 5/3/11 11:01 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> In other words, calling it an in-memory table does capture
> the essence of the intent; it is enough if the caveats which come
> later cover the exceptions, IMO. But let's not rename the feature;
> this is about marketing presentation.

Right. What I'm suggesting ... and have already been doing, because I
didn't realize it would be a problem, is that we say something like this
in the description:

"Unlogged tables are similar to in-memory tables or global temporary
tables."

That way, we make it clear that they're not exactly the same, but we
still use the right buzzwords. And they are similar, because they can
be used to fill the same needs.

Part of the problem is the name we're using for the feature. "Unlogged
tables" sounds like we've taken something away and are calling that a
feature. "Now with no brakes!" As feature names go, it's as unsexy as
you can get.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com