From: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, PostgreSQL Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
Date: | 2011-05-13 21:03:50 |
Message-ID: | BANLkTikbqvx6Nm23Uy5-pyPgNoUb1XPXSw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
On 13 May 2011 21:56, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> It has bothered me that "unlogged tables" are explained using their
> implementation (logged), rather than their behavior (non-durable). How
> is "Non-Durabble Tables" for a name?
Unlogged tables still sounds fine to me. It's simple and accurate,
and it will be familiar to anyone who's disabled journalling on a
filesystem. (i.e. trading crash-safety for speed).
Non-durable just sounds like it'll eventually wear out like a cheap tyre.
--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-05-13 21:04:42 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-05-13 20:56:02 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-05-13 21:04:42 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-05-13 20:56:02 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |