Re: Acclerating INSERT/UPDATE using UPS

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Acclerating INSERT/UPDATE using UPS
Date: 2007-02-11 06:36:16
Message-ID: 45CEB960.4070008@commandprompt.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Christopher Browne wrote:
> kawasima(at)cs(dot)tsukuba(dot)ac(dot)jp (Hideyuki Kawashima) wrote:
>> Joshua,
>>
>> I appreciate your quick & informative reply. And, I also really
>> appreciate your kind comments. Since I have joined this ML 3 hours
>> ago, I tried to be polite and slightly nervous. But I was relieved
>> by your message.
>
> Your idea sounds interesting; there is likely to be a considerable
> resistance to mechanisms, however, that would be likely to make
> PostgreSQL less robust.
>
> Be aware, also, that in a public forum like this, people are sometimes
> less gentle than Joshua.
>
> The fundamental trouble with this mechanism is that a power outage can
> instantly turn a database into crud.

Correct, that is certainly a problem. However, I think the interesting
opportunity here is in devices that don't typically loose power. A PDA
for example.

The PostgreSQL footprint is actually quite small, and PDAs are getting
larger and larger in capacity. Heck, they even have 32GB SD now. In the
near future I believe we can expect to see always on, mini laptops as well.

From an deployable application perspective, this could be a big deal. We
are already starting to see very large traction in the Win32 desktop app
arena.

>
> One may try to mitigate that problem by supporting the memory device
> with multiple power supplies *and* multiple UPSes.
>
> But there is a not-inconsiderable risk that people will fail to read
> warnings, deploy databases in a way that leaves them exposed to total
> loss, and then lay blame at this community's feet. I'm sure you can
> understand why the community might resist that...

I certainly can, but a feature left off by default and documented
thoroughly can mitigate a lot of that. Heck if we really wanted to we
could even make it a custom build; --with-lazy-wal ;)

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2007-02-11 06:39:03 Re: Acclerating INSERT/UPDATE using UPS
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-02-11 06:27:17 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: StrNCpy -> strlcpy (not complete)