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: https://momjian.us/main/blogs/pgblog/2017.html#June_2_2017 -- 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 (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers