From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | Joshua Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rob Wultsch <wultsch(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
Date: | 2011-05-05 19:52:11 |
Message-ID: | BANLkTikwy-LrnhFgqLqpsP-A=PjCnBMVFg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
>>> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I doubt that anyone wants the current behaviour.
>>>
>>> Current behavior would be an exact fit for a few use cases we
>>> have. Attempting to salvage some portion of the data on startup
>>> after a crash would yield it unusable for the uses I have in
>>> mind. It would have either all be there, or all gone.
>
>> Those words have been taken out of context, leading to what looks
>> to me like a confusion.
>
> Sorry, any misinterpretation wasn't intended. I just wanted to be
> clear that for my purposes it would be best if lack of a clean
> shutdown caused *all* non-logged tables to come up empty. I would
> be using several of such tables to build up a single financial
> transaction during user data entry. Since that would be going
> through a connection pool, the shared visibility of the tables is a
> necessity.
>
> In our current framework it is possible to bounce the database
> server without interruption of user services beyond brief clocking,
> which would be supported by saving the contents on clean shutdown
> for restoration on startup. However, if the data appeared to be
> present on startup, but portions of it were quietly missing or
> modified, that could lead to the posting of an incorrect financial
> transaction when the user was done and the software slammed data for
> the WIP transaction into the permanent financial tables.
>
> If you're not proposing to break any of that, I can still move to
> them from the "normal" permanent tables we're currently using.
>
> Again, if I misunderstood you, sorry for the noise.
Your response is definitely about "the other thread" on hackers.
Worth bringing it up because others might have been confused also.
No problem,
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-05-05 20:15:42 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-05-05 19:45:53 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-05-05 20:05:03 | Re: Process wakeups when idle and power consumption |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-05-05 19:51:34 | Re: new clang report |