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

Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache

From: Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache
Date: 2010-06-24 08:25:23
Message-ID: 87sk4cu9ak.fsf@hi-media-techno.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> The problem with a system-wide no-WAL setting is it means you can't
> trust the system catalogs after a crash.  Which means you are forced to
> use initdb to recover from any crash, in return for not a lot of savings
> (for typical usages where there's not really much churn in the
> catalogs). 

What about having a "catalog only" WAL setting, userset ?

I'm not yet clear on the point but it well seems that the per
transaction WAL setting is impossible because of catalogs (meaning
mainly DDL support), but I can see us enforcing durability and crash
safety there.

That would probably mean that setting WAL level this low yet doing any
kind of DDL would need to be either an ERROR, or better yet, a WARNING
telling that the WAL level can not be that low so has been raised by the
system.

Regards,
-- 
dim

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Rob WultschDate: 2010-06-24 08:40:23
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2010-06-23 20:45:09
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache

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