Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory
| От | Thom Brown |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAA-aLv6BGUQ2Nx_nhpL=Bcz0XGOnKOOWQroDbcJVmJv8uynB6Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory
|
| Список | 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
В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления: