Re: Proposal for CSN based snapshots

On 08/10/2016 09:04 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Joshua D. Drake (jd@commandprompt.com) wrote:
>> +1 for Robert here, removing async commit is a non-starter. It is
>> PostgreSQL performance 101 that you disable synchronous commit
>> unless you have a specific data/business requirement that needs it.
>> Specifically because of how much faster Pg is with async commit.
>
> I agree that we don't want to get rid of async commit, but, for the
> archive, I wouldn't recommend using it unless you specifically understand
> and accept that trade-off, so I wouldn't lump it into a "PostgreSQL
> performance 101" group- that's increasing work_mem, shared_buffers, WAL
> size, etc.  Accepting that you're going to lose *committed* transactions
> on a crash requires careful thought and consideration of what you're
> going to do when that happens, not the other way around.

Yes Stephen, you are correct which is why I said, "unless you have a 
specific data/business requirement that needs it".

Thanks!

jD

>
> Thanks!
>
> Stephen
>


-- 
Command Prompt, Inc.                  http://the.postgres.company/                        +1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.