| From: | Joshua Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jehan-Guillaume (ioguix) de Rorthais" <ioguix(at)free(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | damien clochard <damien(at)dalibo(dot)info>, Roy Hann <specially(at)processed(dot)almost(dot)meat>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org, Rob Wultsch <wultsch(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
| Date: | 2011-05-05 17:09:46 |
| Message-ID: | 936617529.237123.1304615386124.JavaMail.root@mail-1.01.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
All,
FWIW, I wasn't planning to change the name of the feature (although Volatile Tables has a certain appeal). We also have a duty to our users not to mislead them, and "Unlogged tables" does say something about the durability of their data. The last thing we want is for users to repeat the MyISAM experience with PostgreSQL. Also, we're not changing the syntax for declaring one at this point.
My query to this list was mostly about how we *describe* Unlogged Tables for the press. I have the same questions about a few other features, but we seem to have hammered out SSI.
I feel like the consensus is that we can describe Unlogged Tables as "similar to in-memory tables" without misleading anyone.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
San Francisco
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thom Brown | 2011-05-05 17:15:15 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
| Previous Message | Jehan-Guillaume (ioguix) de Rorthais | 2011-05-05 15:47:11 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2011-05-05 17:14:10 | Re: FDW table hints |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-05-05 17:03:51 | Re: Patch to improve style of generate_history.pl perl script |