Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 24597.1276803510@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache (Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine@hi-media.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache
Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache |
Список | pgsql-performance |
Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine@hi-media.com> writes: > Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.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
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: