| From: | Korry Douglas <korry(dot)douglas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Roy Hann <specially(at)processed(dot)almost(dot)meat> |
| Cc: | pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
| Date: | 2011-05-04 15:19:33 |
| Message-ID: | 1B92C36C-CEBC-4C26-962E-22418C5CEB45@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
>> When doing PR, it's more important to use terms people recognize than to use
>> terms which are perfectly accurate. Nobody expects a news article to
>> be perfectly accurate anyway.
>>
>> However, I posted this because I think that several folks in the community feel
>> that this is going too far into the land of marketese, and I want to
>> hash it out and get consensus before we start pitching 9.1 final.
>
> Call 'em table-valued variables.
Ferrari Tables - everyone knows that a Ferrari is fast, would you expect them to be crash-safe?
-- Korry
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Adrian Klaver | 2011-05-04 15:22:34 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-05-04 14:02:15 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-05-04 15:19:54 | Re: Extreme bloating of intarray GiST indexes |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-05-04 15:11:57 | Re: DLL export with mingw-w64: currently a no-op |