From: | "A(dot)M(dot)" <agentm(at)themactionfaction(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: unlogged tables |
Date: | 2010-11-17 21:02:03 |
Message-ID: | 2AC33E77-3A2C-475E-8B26-237B436E903A@themactionfaction.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Nov 17, 2010, at 4:00 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> OK, so we're proposing a hierarchy like this.
>>
>> 1. PERMANENT (already exists).
>
>> 2. UNLOGGED (what this patch currently implements).
>
>> 3. UNSYNCED (future work).
>
>> 4. GLOBAL TEMPORARY (future work).
>
>> 5. LOCAL TEMPORARY (our current temp tables).
>
> All of the above would have real uses in our shop.
>
>> It's possible to imagine a few more stops on this hierarchy.
>
> Some of these might be slightly preferred over the above in certain
> circumstances, but that's getting down to fine tuning. I think the
> five listed above are more important than the "speculative ones
> mentioned.
>
>> I don't particularly care for the name UNSYNCED
>
> EVANESCENT?
>
>> I'm starting not to like UNLOGGED much either
>
> EPHEMERAL?
>
> Actually, the UNSYNCED and UNLOGGED seem fairly clear....
Unless one thinks that the types could be combined- perhaps a table declaration could use both UNLOGGED and UNSYNCED?
Cheers,
M
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-11-17 21:05:56 | Re: unlogged tables |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-11-17 21:00:12 | Re: unlogged tables |