Re: unlogged tables

Kevin Grittner <kevin.grittner@wicourts.gov>

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>

To: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Cc: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew@dunslane.net>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>, "marcin mank" <marcin.mank@gmail.com>, <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, "Kenneth Marshall" <ktm@rice.edu>, "Andy Colson" <andy@squeakycode.net>

Date: 2010-11-17T21:00:12Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:

> OK, so we're proposing a hierarchy like this.
> 
> 1. PERMANENT (already exists).

> 2. UNLOGGED (what this patch currently implements).

> 3. UNSYNCED (future work).

> 4. GLOBAL TEMPORARY (future work).

> 5. LOCAL TEMPORARY (our current temp tables).

All of the above would have real uses in our shop.

> It's possible to imagine a few more stops on this hierarchy.

Some of these might be slightly preferred over the above in certain
circumstances, but that's getting down to fine tuning.  I think the
five listed above are more important than the "speculative ones
mentioned.

> I don't particularly care for the name UNSYNCED

EVANESCENT?

> I'm starting not to like UNLOGGED much either

EPHEMERAL?

Actually, the UNSYNCED and UNLOGGED seem fairly clear....

-Kevin