Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Synchronous commit not... synchronous?

From: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net>
To: Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>
Cc: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Peter van Hardenberg <pvh(at)pvh(dot)ca>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Synchronous commit not... synchronous?
Date: 2012-11-03 00:08:18
Message-ID: 50946072.8050406@krosing.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 11/02/2012 09:46 PM, Daniel Farina wrote:
> The bar for "reliable" non-volatile storage for me are things like
> Amazon's S3, and I think a lot of that has to do with the otherwise
> relatively impoverished semantics it has, so I think this reliability
> profile will be or has been duplicated elsewhere.
>
> In general, this has some relation to remastering issues.
>
> In the future, I'd like to be able to turn off the local pg_xlog, at my option.
Have you tried things like mounting remote RAM drive
over NFS or similar for pg_xlog ?

You probably could even play with DRBD and have one or both
of the drives be RAM drives.

Hannu




In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Noah MischDate: 2012-11-03 00:23:56
Subject: Re: Incorrect behaviour when using a GiST index on points
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-11-02 23:27:16
Subject: Re: Bugs in planner's equivalence-class processing

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group