Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory

From: Joshua Kramer <josh(at)globalherald(dot)net>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory
Date: 2011-05-03 18:28:27
Message-ID: alpine.LFD.2.00.1105031427360.7329@home-av-server.home-av
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers


> 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?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2011-05-03 18:44:27 Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory
Previous Message Gilberto Castillo Martínez 2011-05-03 18:14:46 Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-05-03 18:41:27 Re: Prefered Types
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2011-05-03 18:24:19 Re: SIREAD lock versus ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock