| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Rob Wultsch <wultsch(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
| Date: | 2011-05-05 18:59:49 |
| Message-ID: | 4DC2F3A5.6050704@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
Simon,
> 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.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-05-05 19:00:51 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2011-05-05 18:53:36 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-05-05 19:00:12 | Re: Visibility map and hint bits |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2011-05-05 18:53:36 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |