| From: | Ian Bailey-Leung <ian(at)hardcircle(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joshua Kramer <josh(at)globalherald(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
| Date: | 2011-05-04 01:50:51 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTi=O0Z=XtMAxSuJv12bPiTWhfJ-SSQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Joshua Kramer <josh(at)globalherald(dot)net> wrote:
>> 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
> Logless tables?
> Log-Free tables?
The best way to show off a new feature is to emphasize the positive
aspects. The main reason people will use unlogged tables is to improve
performance on tables that do not need to be crash safe. I would
propose calling the feature something like "Fast Tables", and the fine
print can mention the trade-offs related to not logging.
Just my thoughts,
~Ian
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Roy Hann | 2011-05-04 11:38:16 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-05-03 18:56:46 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Blewett | 2011-05-04 01:51:46 | Re: branching for 9.2devel |
| Previous Message | Tian Luo | 2011-05-04 01:46:44 | "full_page_writes" makes no difference? |