Horton

Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>

View thread
From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Joshua Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, Rob Wultsch <wultsch@gmail.com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com>, PostgreSQL Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-05-05T19:35:08Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> wrote:
>
>> I doubt that anyone wants the current behaviour.
>
> Current behavior would be an exact fit for a few use cases we have.
> Attempting to salvage some portion of the data on startup after a
> crash would yield it unusable for the uses I have in mind.  It would
> have either all be there, or all gone.
>
> That's not to knock use cases others may have, just providing a data
> point.

Those words have been taken out of context, leading to what looks to
me like a confusion.

..by "the current behaviour", I was specifically talking about the
problem raised by Rob Wultsch upthread about RAM disks, not anything
else.

I have proposed a new and additional behaviour for 9.2 on hackers,
though the two points are unrelated except for its me making them
both.

-- 
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services