Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache

Tom Lane wrote:
> Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:
> > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I don't think we need a system-wide setting for that. �I believe that
> >> the unlogged tables I'm working on will handle that case.
>
> > Aren't they going to be truncated at startup? If the entire system is
> > running without WAL, we would only need to do that in case of an
> > unclean shutdown wouldn't we?
>
> The problem with a system-wide no-WAL setting is it means you can't
> trust the system catalogs after a crash.  Which means you are forced to

True, and in fact any postmaster crash could lead to curruption.

> use initdb to recover from any crash, in return for not a lot of savings
> (for typical usages where there's not really much churn in the
> catalogs).  I tend to agree with Robert that a way to not log content
> updates for individual user tables is likely to be much more useful in
> practice.

OK, TODO removed.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + None of us is going to be here forever. +