From: | Rob Wultsch <wultsch(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pierre C <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com>, postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache |
Date: | 2010-06-24 08:40:23 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTin96FJbBv3kjGwjPKU-K1yAP2AHasAqrLokPqMv@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> It must be a setting, not a version.
>>
>> For instance suppose you have a session table for your website and a
>> users table.
>>
>> - Having ACID on the users table is of course a must ;
>> - for the sessions table you can drop the "D"
>
> You're trying to solve a different use-case than the one I am.
>
> Your use-case will be solved by global temporary tables. I suggest that
> you give Robert Haas some help & feedback on that.
>
> My use case is people using PostgreSQL as a cache, or relying entirely
> on replication for durability.
>
> --
> -- Josh Berkus
> PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
> http://www.pgexperts.com
>
Is he? Wouldn't a global temporary table have content that is not
visible between db connections? A db session many not be the same as a
user session.
--
Rob Wultsch
wultsch(at)gmail(dot)com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matthew Wakeling | 2010-06-24 09:14:00 | Re: WAL+Os on a single disk |
Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2010-06-24 08:25:23 | Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache |