Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>
Cc: 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: 2010-06-17 19:38:30
Message-ID: 24597.1276803510@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> writes:
> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>> a) Eliminate WAL logging entirely
>> b) Eliminate checkpointing
>> c) Turn off the background writer
>> d) Have PostgreSQL refuse to restart after a crash and instead call an
>> exteral script (for reprovisioning)

> Well I guess I'd prefer a per-transaction setting, allowing to bypass
> WAL logging and checkpointing.

Not going to happen; this is all or nothing.

> Forcing the backend to care itself for
> writing the data I'm not sure is a good thing, but if you say so.

Yeah, I think proposal (c) is likely to be a net loss.

(a) and (d) are probably simple, if by "reprovisioning" you mean
"rm -rf $PGDATA; initdb". Point (b) will be a bit trickier because
there are various housekeeping activities tied into checkpoints.
I think you can't actually remove checkpoints altogether, just
skip the flush-dirty-pages part.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Smith 2010-06-17 19:59:39 Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache
Previous Message Dimitri Fontaine 2010-06-17 19:01:19 Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache