From: | "Jehan-Guillaume (ioguix) de Rorthais" <ioguix(at)free(dot)fr> |
---|---|
To: | damien clochard <damien(at)dalibo(dot)info> |
Cc: | Roy Hann <specially(at)processed(dot)almost(dot)meat>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
Date: | 2011-05-05 12:36:07 |
Message-ID: | 4DC299B7.4090807@free.fr |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
On 05/05/2011 14:29, damien clochard wrote:
> Le 04/05/2011 13:38, Roy Hann a écrit :
>> Joshua Berkus wrote:
>>
>>> When doing PR, it's more important to use terms people recognize than to use
>>> terms which are perfectly accurate. Nobody expects a news article to
>>> be perfectly accurate anyway.
>>>
>>> However, I posted this because I think that several folks in the community feel
>>> that this is going too far into the land of marketese, and I want to
>>> hash it out and get consensus before we start pitching 9.1 final.
>>
>> Call 'em table-valued variables.
>>
>
> How about "Volatile Tables" ?
>
> It makes it pretty clear that you cannot put valuable data in it.
> In the same time the word implies that the tables are gonna be faster
> than standard tables (like volatile memory being faster Disk storage)
Yeah, but volatile means « lost on shutdown », which is not the case
here during a clean shutdown.
> Plus it's easy to translate in French :P
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rob Wultsch | 2011-05-05 15:36:33 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
Previous Message | damien clochard | 2011-05-05 12:29:45 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2011-05-05 14:25:29 | Re: VARIANT / ANYTYPE datatype |
Previous Message | damien clochard | 2011-05-05 12:29:45 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |