On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 20:52, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>
>> They are *not* similar to in-memory table, in that they are
>> *always* written to disk.
>
> I thought we avoided flushing them to disk on checkpoint, or did
> that idea fall flat? Does the background writer flush them? If
> neither of these happens, then we can legitimately call them
> in-memory, as long as we point out that they are saved on a clean
> shutdown for reload on startup, and may be flushed from RAM at times
> when other objects need the memory.
I thought that wasn't implemented. But I could certainly have missed
something around it. If they are like that then yes, we can probably
get around calling them "similar to" in-memory tables.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
