Re: WAL directory size calculation

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Moreno Andreo <moreno.andreo@evolu-s.it> wrote:
> Obviously ramdisk will be times faster disk, but having a, say, 512 GB
> ramdisk will be a little too expensive :-)

Besides defeating the purpose of WAL, if you are going to use non
persistent storage for WAL you could as well use minimal level,
fsync=off and friends.

> Aside of this, I'm having 350 DBs that sum up a bit more than 1 TB, and plan
> to use wal_level=archive because I plan to have a backup server with barman.

Is this why you plan using RAM for WAL ( assuming fast copies to the
archive and relying on it for recovery ) ?

Francisco Olarte.