On 5 May 2011 19:17, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>
>> Saying "similar to in-memory tables" sounds immediately misleading to
>> me. If I didn't know any better, I'd assume:
>
> We can be perfectly technically correct, or we can have people who
> aren't already PostgreSQL users get interested enough to try our stuff.
> There is no third choice.
>
> So far, the only suggestions I've seen for how to advocate this feature
> have involved renaming it, which isn't realistic at this point. If
> someone has an alternative description for the feature that anyone who
> is not already a PostgreSQL DBA will care about, them please come
> forward with it.
How about my original suggestion which is: tables that sacrifice
crash-safety for speed... or much faster tables at the expense of
crash-safety? A sub-note to that could be that in the unlikely event
of a crash, the table data will be lost, but not the table.
I personally haven't used "in-memory" tables, so may be appropriate to
the DBA demographic. It doesn't sound right in my head though.
--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
