From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Rob Wultsch <wultsch(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
Date: | 2011-09-23 14:56:43 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY5th4hWe3KmWQ0CqXCRExXWQA47w3+V3Ek0t1ShPpEUQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> CREATE TABLESPACE now_you_see_me_now_you_dont LOCATION
> '/mnt/highly_reliable_san' VOLATILE LOCATION '/mnt/ramdisk';
>
> All forks of temporary relations, and all non-_init forks of
> non-temporary relations, could be stored in the VOLATILE LOCATION,
> while everything else could be stored in the regular LOCATION.
>
> Hmm... actually, I kind of like that. Thoughts?
Gah. I mean, all forks of temporary relations, and all non-_init
forks of *unlogged* relations, could be stored in the VOLATILE
LOCATION. Permanent tables would have all forks in the regular
LOCATION, along with _init forks of unlogged tables.
Of course, that would have the problem that relpathbackend() would
need to know the relpersistence value in order to compute the
pathname, which I think is going to be ugly, come to think of it.
Hmm...
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Fetter | 2011-09-23 15:23:34 | Re: Wikipedia's Isolation page |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-09-23 14:54:13 | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-09-23 15:20:46 | Re: DECLARE CURSOR must not contain data-modifying statements in WITH |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-09-23 14:54:13 | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Unlogged vs. In-Memory |