On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 08:28:51AM -0700, Mark Dilger wrote:
> > Uh, I thought only the sessions that created the temporary objects could
> > see them, and since they are not in WAL and autovacuum can't see them,
> > their non-existence in a temporary tablespace would not be a problem.
> You are correct.  I was thinking about an extension to allow unlogged
> tablespaces on temporary filesystems, but got the words "unlogged" and
> "temporary" mixed up in my thinking and in what I wrote.  I should have
> written that unlogged tablespaces would only host unlogged tables and
> unlogged indexes, such that users are not surprised to find their data
> missing.
> On reflection, I think both features are worthwhile, and not at all exclusive
> of each other, though unlogged tablespaces is probably considerably more
> work to implement.

TODO item added:

        Allow tablespaces on RAM-based partitions for temporary objects 

and I wrote a blog entry about this:


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

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to