Re: [pgsql-general] In memory tables/databases

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Alexander Todorov" <alexx(dot)todorov(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [pgsql-general] In memory tables/databases
Date: 2007-07-01 23:54:20
Message-ID: 18712.1183334060@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

"Alexander Todorov" <alexx(dot)todorov(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On 7/2/07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> The fresh-initdb approach is more likely to work without any strange
>> corner cases. If you try a setup where the system catalogs are on
>> persistent storage but you have a tablespace on ramdisk, then after
>> restart you'll have pg_class entries referencing files that don't exist
>> anymore, which I believe will provoke errors.

> I believe error will occur if trying to access these objects. To avoid
> this pg_dump/pg_restore may be useful and recreating the
> tables/indexes after restart.

You might as well start with a freshly initdb'd cluster (all on ramdisk)
and do pg_restore from a full dump instead of a data-only dump. The
former will probably be faster as well as more foolproof.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrej Ricnik-Bay 2007-07-02 00:16:45 Re: yet another simple SQL question
Previous Message Bjorn Boulder 2007-07-01 23:39:48 Re: Problem connecting PostgreSQL 8.2 to Rails 1.2