Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory

Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 5/3/11 11:01 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > In other words, calling it an in-memory table does capture
> > the essence of the intent; it is enough if the caveats which come
> > later cover the exceptions, IMO.  But let's not rename the feature;
> > this is about marketing presentation.
>
> Right.   What I'm suggesting ... and have already been doing, because I
> didn't realize it would be a problem, is that we say something like this
> in the description:
>
> "Unlogged tables are similar to in-memory tables or global temporary
> tables."
>
> That way, we make it clear that they're not exactly the same, but we
> still use the right buzzwords.  And they are similar, because they can
> be used to fill the same needs.
>
> 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.

It has bothered me that "unlogged tables" are explained using their
implementation (logged), rather than their behavior (non-durable).  How
is "Non-Durabble Tables" for a name?

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

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +