Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
To: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com>, Rob Wultsch <wultsch@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-05-05T19:10:48Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > >> I doubt that anyone wants the current behaviour. >> >> It's a very common thing for minor changes during beta to improve software. >> I think we should be listening to users so that we round off the >> features being delivered with a few tweaks. > > Actually, I find the Unlogged tables very useful as they are. I have at > least 20 clients who store their "session" tables in PostgreSQL, as well > as quite a few clients who use PostgreSQL as a backing store for a queue > with ephemeral data. And the Unlogged tables are terrrific for doing ELT. And at the moment we can't put them on a RAM disk, so we *must* incur I/O for them, even though this could be easily avoided. And then it actually would be the "in-memory table" that you suggested and that we all want. Deprogram the thought that I am trying to diss Unlogged tables, and instead listen to the user feedback during Beta. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services