Re: unlogged tables

On Nov 17, 2010, at 4:00 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:

> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> OK, so we're proposing a hierarchy like this.
>>
>> 1. PERMANENT (already exists).
>
>> 2. UNLOGGED (what this patch currently implements).
>
>> 3. UNSYNCED (future work).
>
>> 4. GLOBAL TEMPORARY (future work).
>
>> 5. LOCAL TEMPORARY (our current temp tables).
>
> All of the above would have real uses in our shop.
>
>> It's possible to imagine a few more stops on this hierarchy.
>
> Some of these might be slightly preferred over the above in certain
> circumstances, but that's getting down to fine tuning.  I think the
> five listed above are more important than the "speculative ones
> mentioned.
>
>> I don't particularly care for the name UNSYNCED
>
> EVANESCENT?
>
>> I'm starting not to like UNLOGGED much either
>
> EPHEMERAL?
>
> Actually, the UNSYNCED and UNLOGGED seem fairly clear....

Unless one thinks that the types could be combined- perhaps a table declaration could use both UNLOGGED and UNSYNCED?

Cheers,
M