From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
Date: | 2011-05-03 18:54:45 |
Message-ID: | BANLkTikd2L0uuKRinWc8QU_VrdHWS=QnvQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 20:52, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>
>> They are *not* similar to in-memory table, in that they are
>> *always* written to disk.
>
> I thought we avoided flushing them to disk on checkpoint, or did
> that idea fall flat? Does the background writer flush them? If
> neither of these happens, then we can legitimately call them
> in-memory, as long as we point out that they are saved on a clean
> shutdown for reload on startup, and may be flushed from RAM at times
> when other objects need the memory.
I thought that wasn't implemented. But I could certainly have missed
something around it. If they are like that then yes, we can probably
get around calling them "similar to" in-memory tables.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thom Brown | 2011-05-03 18:55:28 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2011-05-03 18:53:19 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thom Brown | 2011-05-03 18:55:28 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2011-05-03 18:53:19 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |