Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 20:07, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> > On 5/3/11 11:01 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> >> In other words, calling it an in-memory table does capture
> >> the essence of the intent; it is enough if the caveats which come
> >> later cover the exceptions, IMO. ?But let's not rename the feature;
> >> this is about marketing presentation.
> >
> > Right. ? What I'm suggesting ... and have already been doing, because I
> > didn't realize it would be a problem, is that we say something like this
> > in the description:
> >
> > "Unlogged tables are similar to in-memory tables or global temporary
> > tables."
>
> They are *not* similar to in-memory table, in that they are *always*
> written to disk. AFAIK that is - or do they actually get spooled in
> RAM-only until they get big enough? I'm prettysure they don't.
>
> They *are*, however, pretty similar to global temporary tables. Are
> those well known enough to be used for the pitch without mentioning
> in-memory tables?
I thought global temp tables were tables that existed as empty in every
session and had per-session data. This is on our TODO list:
Allow temporary tables to exist as empty by default in all sessions
* what is difference between LOCAL and GLOBAL TEMP TABLES in PostgreSQL
* idea: global temp tables
* Re: idea: global temp tables
* global temporary tables
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
