Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory

From: Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, PostgreSQL Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory
Date: 2011-05-13 21:03:50
Message-ID: BANLkTikbqvx6Nm23Uy5-pyPgNoUb1XPXSw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers

On 13 May 2011 21:56, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> It has bothered me that "unlogged tables" are explained using their
> implementation (logged), rather than their behavior (non-durable).  How
> is "Non-Durabble Tables" for a name?

Unlogged tables still sounds fine to me. It's simple and accurate,
and it will be familiar to anyone who's disabled journalling on a
filesystem. (i.e. trading crash-safety for speed).

Non-durable just sounds like it'll eventually wear out like a cheap tyre.

--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2011-05-13 21:04:42 Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2011-05-13 20:56:02 Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2011-05-13 21:04:42 Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2011-05-13 20:56:02 Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory