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

On Thursday 05 July 2007 13:52, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> A.M. wrote:
> > On Jul 5, 2007, at 13:20 , Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 11:11:30PM +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> >>> The question was is there something else that exists in PostgreSQL and
> >>> will do the same job.
> >
> > Why not have a table type that writes no WAL and is truncated whenever
> > postgres starts? Such a table could then be put in a ramdisk tablespace
> > and there would be no transaction atomicity repercussions. Is there
> > something I'm missing?
> >
<snip>
>
> P.S. I agree with you, but you are barking up a very tall tree and you
> don't have a chainsaw. The fact is, global temp tables that could be
> assigned a static amount of memory to use that would recycle based on
> some parameter would be infinitely useful, but likely won't get anywhere.
>

I used to think that, but after looking into what the spec thinks global temp
tables should behave like, I'm less inclined to agree. Currently I'm back
to fancying something akin to Oracle's NoLogging option, where (in pg terms)
the oid of a table would be marked so any further DML type information
generated from that table is simply ignored.

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL