Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Unlogged vs. In-Memory
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoY5th4hWe3KmWQ0CqXCRExXWQA47w3+V3Ek0t1ShPpEUQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Unlogged vs. In-Memory (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Unlogged vs. In-Memory
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > CREATE TABLESPACE now_you_see_me_now_you_dont LOCATION > '/mnt/highly_reliable_san' VOLATILE LOCATION '/mnt/ramdisk'; > > All forks of temporary relations, and all non-_init forks of > non-temporary relations, could be stored in the VOLATILE LOCATION, > while everything else could be stored in the regular LOCATION. > > Hmm... actually, I kind of like that. Thoughts? Gah. I mean, all forks of temporary relations, and all non-_init forks of *unlogged* relations, could be stored in the VOLATILE LOCATION. Permanent tables would have all forks in the regular LOCATION, along with _init forks of unlogged tables. Of course, that would have the problem that relpathbackend() would need to know the relpersistence value in order to compute the pathname, which I think is going to be ugly, come to think of it. Hmm... -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: