Re: Synchronous commit not... synchronous?

On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net> wrote:
> On 11/02/2012 09:46 PM, Daniel Farina wrote:
>>
>> The bar for "reliable" non-volatile storage for me are things like
>> Amazon's S3, and I think a lot of that has to do with the otherwise
>> relatively impoverished semantics it has, so I think this reliability
>> profile will be or has been duplicated elsewhere.
>>
>> In general, this has some relation to remastering issues.
>>
>> In the future, I'd like to be able to turn off the local pg_xlog, at my
>> option.
>
> Have you tried things like mounting remote RAM drive
> over NFS or similar for pg_xlog ?
>
> You probably could even play with DRBD and have one or both
> of the drives be RAM drives.
>
> Hannu

I'm not so interested in such creative workarounds, especially because
the operational maintenance cost is huge when magnified when all I
wish I could do is buffer WAL and forward to a socket, and then
unblock commits when my replication partner says 'alright', just as
they do in spirit for flushing pg_xlog -- what I want is simpler than
a full blown network file system. I also don't need this kind of thing
in the near future -- I'm way behind what's possible as-is.

And then there are issues like transport encryption and being able to
do this across a geography, ugh.

--
fdr