Horton

Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Unlogged vs. In-Memory

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Thom Brown <thom@linux.com>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, Rob Wultsch <wultsch@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2011-09-23T14:56:43Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> CREATE TABLESPACE now_you_see_me_now_you_dont LOCATION
> '/mnt/highly_reliable_san' VOLATILE LOCATION '/mnt/ramdisk';
>
> All forks of temporary relations, and all non-_init forks of
> non-temporary relations, could be stored in the VOLATILE LOCATION,
> while everything else could be stored in the regular LOCATION.
>
> Hmm... actually, I kind of like that.  Thoughts?

Gah.  I mean, all forks of temporary relations, and all non-_init
forks of *unlogged* relations, could be stored in the VOLATILE
LOCATION.  Permanent tables would have all forks in the regular
LOCATION, along with _init forks of unlogged tables.

Of course, that would have the problem that relpathbackend() would
need to know the relpersistence value in order to compute the
pathname, which I think is going to be ugly, come to think of it.

Hmm...

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company