On Mar 3, 2007, at 23:19 , Robert Treat wrote:
>
> A similar idea we've been kicking around would be having a set storage
> parameter = nologging option for alter table which would, as it's name
> implies, cause the system to ignore writing wal logs for the table,
> much like
> it does for temp tables now. One cavaet would be you would
> probably need to
> forbid such a table from being the parent side of a FK
> relationship, but
> otherwise this should be fairly safe even for replay since alter
> table needs
> an exclusive lock, so you have finite points where data for the
> table would
> be written or ignored.
I can't think of any reason why a global temp table couldn't be
referenced by another global temp table, but maybe I'm missing
something. Whenever postgres starts, it would simply truncate the
tables to ensure "temporary" compliance (the no-foot-gun approach). I
could then place such tables in a ramdisk tablespace and make
postgresql a transaction-safe memcached replacement. This would also
be great for materialized views.
Cheers,
M
