| From: | "Pierre Barre" <pierre(at)barre(dot)sh> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Nico Williams" <nico(at)cryptonector(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Seref Arikan" <serefarikan(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL on S3-backed Block Storage with Near-Local Performance |
| Date: | 2025-07-24 19:50:58 |
| Message-ID: | 5c512367-0f67-4bcc-9897-1acf9c0f8bd3@app.fastmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
It’s not “safe” or “unsafe”, there’s mountains of valid workloads which don’t require synchronous_commit. Synchronous_commit don’t make your system automatically safe either, and if that’s a requirement, there’s many workarounds, as you suggested, it certainly doesn’t make the setup useless.
Best,
Pierre
On Thu, Jul 24, 2025, at 21:44, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 12:57:39PM +0200, Pierre Barre wrote:
>> - Postgres configured accordingly memory-wise as well as with
>> synchronous_commit = off, wal_init_zero = off and wal_recycle = off.
>
> Bingo. That's why it's fast (synchronous_commit = off). It's also why
> it's not safe _unless_ you have a local, fast, persistent ZIL device
> (which I assume you don't).
>
> Nico
> --
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Ross | 2025-07-24 22:03:34 | Re: PostgreSQL on S3-backed Block Storage with Near-Local Performance |
| Previous Message | Nico Williams | 2025-07-24 19:44:46 | Re: PostgreSQL on S3-backed Block Storage with Near-Local Performance |