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

From Thom Brown
Subject Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory
Date
Msg-id CAA-aLv6BGUQ2Nx_nhpL=Bcz0XGOnKOOWQroDbcJVmJv8uynB6Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
List pgsql-advocacy
On 4 May 2011 16:30, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> To make PG do it automatically, we'd need to store the _init forks in
>> a different tablespace from the remaining forks.  That's probably
>> possible, but it seems complicated.
>
> Sounds much better way actually and also quite easy. All we do is keep
> the init forks in a subdirectory that identifies the tablespace they
> relate to.

So are there any plans to allow swappable drive/volatile storage
unlogged tables?

--
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: Gabriele Bartolini
Date:
Subject: Re: Links for 9.1 press coverage
Next
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory