Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 20:52, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>
>> They are *not* similar to in-memory table, in that they are
>> *always* written to disk.
>
> I thought we avoided flushing them to disk on checkpoint, or did
> that idea fall flat?  Does the background writer flush them?  If
> neither of these happens, then we can legitimately call them
> in-memory, as long as we point out that they are saved on a clean
> shutdown for reload on startup, and may be flushed from RAM at times
> when other objects need the memory.

I thought that wasn't implemented. But I could certainly have missed
something around it. If they are like that then yes, we can probably
get around calling them "similar to" in-memory tables.

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/