| From: | John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Postgres as In-Memory Database? |
| Date: | 2013-11-18 01:03:09 |
| Message-ID: | 5289674D.9010307@hogranch.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 11/17/2013 4:46 PM, Edson Richter wrote:
>
> There is no reason to wait for fsync in slow disks to guarantee
> consistency... If database server crashes, then it just need to "redo"
> log transactions from fast disk into slower data storage and database
> server is ready to go (I think this is Sybase/MS SQL strategy for years).
you need to fsync that slower disk before you can purge the older WAL or
redo log, whatever, from your fast storage. this fsync can, of course,
be quite a ways behind the current commit status.
--
john r pierce 37N 122W
somewhere on the middle of the left coast
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hengky Liwandouw | 2013-11-18 02:16:15 | Help : Sum 2 tables based on key from other table |
| Previous Message | Edson Richter | 2013-11-18 00:46:23 | Re: Postgres as In-Memory Database? |