Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> I doubt that anyone wants the current behaviour.
>>
>> It's a very common thing for minor changes during beta to improve software.
>> I think we should be listening to users so that we round off the
>> features being delivered with a few tweaks.
>
> Actually, I find the Unlogged tables very useful as they are.  I have at
> least 20 clients who store their "session" tables in PostgreSQL, as well
> as quite a few clients who use PostgreSQL as a backing store for a queue
> with ephemeral data.  And the Unlogged tables are terrrific for doing ELT.

And at the moment we can't put them on a RAM disk, so we *must* incur
I/O for them, even though this could be easily avoided. And then it
actually would be the "in-memory table" that you suggested and that we
all want.

Deprogram the thought that I am trying to diss Unlogged tables, and
instead listen to the user feedback during Beta.

--
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services