Hi Vik, > Yes. The only difference between logged and unlogged tables is the lack > of WAL. As long as there's no crash, unlogged tables are treated the > same as logged tables as far as flushing/fsync-ing is concerned.
Ok thats really bad news :/ After reading the discussion about calling unlogged tables "in memory" or "cached" I actually had high hopes pgql would take advantage of the fact that data of unlogged tables are not preserved at recovery. However, it seems pgsql fsyncs frequently to guarantee durability of table data which will be rejected anyway at recovery from an unclean shutdown. I'll have a look at the source and probably prepare a patch. Regards, Clemens -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
