Hideyuki Kawashima wrote:
> Joshua,
:)
> The reason why I made the Sigres is, the advances of recent non volatile
> memories. Just now we do not usually use non volatile memories. But in
> the near future, situation would change. I think if a non volatile
> memories can be considered as a persistence device, PostgreSQL WAL
> mechanism should be modified.
> However, I do not use such devices usually. Thus I made Sigres which
> requires UPS.
This is actually very interesting. We (www.commandprompt.com) have had
several customers ask us how we can make PostgreSQL more reasonable
within a flash environment.
I agree with you that in the future you will see many such databases
including PostgreSQL living on these devices.
Tom? What do you think? Is there some room for movement here within the
postgresql.conf to make something like sigres usable within PostgreSQL
proper?
>
> Currently I have just ignored XLogWrite and WALWriteLock, but a friend
> of mine (a Japanese great hacker of PostgreSQL) has more idea to improve
> WAL if a battery supplied memory can be considered as a persistent device.
>
We are coming up very quickly on a feature freeze for the next version
of PostgreSQL. If... we can has something out quickly enough and in a
thought out fashion, the hackers may be willing to accept a patch for
8.3.. If not there is always 8.4..
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/