Re: PostgreSQL on S3-backed Block Storage with Near-Local Performance - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Pierre Barre
Subject Re: PostgreSQL on S3-backed Block Storage with Near-Local Performance
Date
Msg-id 5c512367-0f67-4bcc-9897-1acf9c0f8bd3@app.fastmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PostgreSQL on S3-backed Block Storage with Near-Local Performance  (Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>)
Responses Re: PostgreSQL on S3-backed Block Storage with Near-Local Performance
List pgsql-general
It’s not “safe” or “unsafe”, there’s mountains of valid workloads which don’t require synchronous_commit.
Synchronous_commitdon’t make your system automatically safe either, and if that’s a requirement, there’s many
workarounds,as you suggested, it certainly doesn’t make the setup useless. 

Best,
Pierre

On Thu, Jul 24, 2025, at 21:44, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 12:57:39PM +0200, Pierre Barre wrote:
>> - Postgres configured accordingly memory-wise as well as with
>>   synchronous_commit = off, wal_init_zero = off and wal_recycle = off.
>
> Bingo.  That's why it's fast (synchronous_commit = off).  It's also why
> it's not safe _unless_ you have a local, fast, persistent ZIL device
> (which I assume you don't).
>
> Nico
> --



pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Nico Williams
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL on S3-backed Block Storage with Near-Local Performance
Next
From: Jeff Ross
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL on S3-backed Block Storage with Near-Local Performance