Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy

From Thom Brown
Subject Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory
Date
Msg-id BANLkTikbqvx6Nm23Uy5-pyPgNoUb1XPXSw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
List pgsql-advocacy
On 13 May 2011 21:56, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> It has bothered me that "unlogged tables" are explained using their
> implementation (logged), rather than their behavior (non-durable).  How
> is "Non-Durabble Tables" for a name?

Unlogged tables still sounds fine to me.  It's simple and accurate,
and it will be familiar to anyone who's disabled journalling on a
filesystem. (i.e. trading crash-safety for speed).

Non-durable just sounds like it'll eventually wear out like a cheap tyre.

--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

pgsql-advocacy by date:

Previous
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Crediting sponsors in release notes?