On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>>
>> "Unlogged tables are similar to in-memory tables or global temporary
>> tables."
>
> They are *not* similar to in-memory table, in that they are *always*
> written to disk. AFAIK that is - or do they actually get spooled in
> RAM-only until they get big enough? I'm prettysure they don't.
>
> They *are*, however, pretty similar to global temporary tables. Are
> those well known enough to be used for the pitch without mentioning
> in-memory tables?
Apparently not.
>> Part of the problem is the name we're using for the feature. "Unlogged
>> tables" sounds like we've taken something away and are calling that a
>> feature. "Now with no brakes!" As feature names go, it's as unsexy as
>> you can get.
>
> "nosql tables"? ;)
Not that either.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
