On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Clemens Eisserer <linuxhippy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Sorry, I could be misunderstanding here, but if the final aim is to reduce the writes, why not tweaking wal settings and checkpoints? I mean, is it possible to find a good solution or you need a kind of in memory storage? Luca -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
