Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy
From | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
Date | |
Msg-id | BANLkTimrTH9we8P_Ykyg2N7RvLS1+8kh5g@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Unlogged vs. In-Memory (Joshua Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>) |
Responses |
Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory
Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
List | pgsql-advocacy |
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> Well, the _init fork can go arbitrarily long without being used, so >>> you can't put any unfrozen tuples in there. There may be some game >>> that can be played here, but it's not simple, especially since the >>> heap and indices have to stay in sync. >> >> I don't think that's a sufficient response. It's clear that people >> expect unlogged tables would be used in conjunction with RAM disks, >> but they clearly don't work in that situation. >> >> That is exactly the main use case of "cache tables". > > I think it's a bit harsh to say that they "don't work". As I > understand it, the use case that Rob is seeking here is the ability to > create a table space on a RAM disk and put unlogged tables (only) into > it and have everything continue to work after a reboot obliterates the > contents of the RAM disk. Fair enough - I can understand why that > would be useful, but I don't think we've ever promised anyone that > blowing away a tablespace was a safe operation. It might actually be > safe if only temporary tables are involved... assuming that the mount > point was the PG_<version>_<catversion> directory, rather than the > tablespace directory proper... but I doubt that we've ever documented > that anywhere, or promised that it would continue working in future > releases. It's a new idea to me, anyhow. > >>> I actually think there is very little low-hanging fruit to be found in >>> terms of improving unlogged tables. >> >> Solving Rob's complaint seems very easy to me. > > Maybe not. I think what you're proposing would essentially amount to > always storing the init forks in $PGDATA, even if the actual > tablespace is elsewhere. I agree that would solve Rob's problem, but > I'm not sure that it's the behavior that everyone wants in general. I doubt that anyone wants the current behaviour. It's a very common thing for minor changes during beta to improve software. I think we should be listening to users so that we round off the features being delivered with a few tweaks. No need to rush it. I'm not trying to pin anything on you, I'm trying to improve your feature, that's all. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
pgsql-advocacy by date: