Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/wal-async-commit.html
" the server waits for the transaction's WAL records to be flushed to permanent storage before returning a success indication to the client."
I think with fynch=off, whether WAL gets written to disk or not is still controlled by synchronous_commit parameter. guessing here...

> Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 12:19:20 -0700
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache
> From: jgardner(at)jonathangardner(dot)net
> To: josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com
> CC: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
>
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> >> * fsync=off => 5,100
> >> * fsync=off and synchronous_commit=off => 5,500
> >
> > Now, this *is* interesting ... why should synch_commit make a difference
> > if fsync is off?
> >
> > Anyone have any ideas?
> >
>
> I may have stumbled upon this by my ignorance, but I thought I read
> that synchronous_commit controlled whether it tries to line up commits
> or has a more free-for-all that may cause some intermediate weirdness.
>
> --
> Jonathan Gardner
> jgardner(at)jonathangardner(dot)net
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance

_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3