From: Pierre C <lists@peufeu.com>
To: Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine@hi-media.com>
To: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Cc: postgres performance list <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 22:12:25 +0200
Message-ID: <op.vegnqzoxeorkce@apollo13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m2typ18ow0.fsf@hi-media.com>
References: <cb0fb58c-9134-4314-a1d0-08fc39f911a6@40g2000pry.googlegroups.com>
<18287446-8677-46d6-a581-c4777f60ebda@40g2000pry.googlegroups.com>
<4C1A5B81.8050908@agliodbs.com>
<m2typ18ow0.fsf@hi-media.com>
> Well I guess I'd prefer a per-transaction setting, allowing to bypass
> WAL logging and checkpointing. Forcing the backend to care itself for
> writing the data I'm not sure is a good thing, but if you say so.
Well if the transaction touches a system catalog it better be WAL-logged...
A per-table (or per-index) setting makes more sense IMHO. For instance "on
recovery, truncate this table" (this was mentioned before).
Another option would be "make the table data safe, but on recovery,
destroy and rebuild this index" : because on a not so large, often updated
table, with often updated indexes, it may not take long to rebuild the
indexes, but all those wal-logged index updates do add some overhead.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: lists@peufeu.com, dfontaine@hi-media.com, josh@agliodbs.com
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache
In-Reply-To: <op.vegnqzoxeorkce@apollo13>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox