On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Tobias Brox wrote:
> We actually have some postgres databases that are read-only, others that
> can be rebuilt by a script or from some old backup, and yet others that
> can be wiped completely without ill effects ... and others where we
> would prefer to keep all the data, but it would be no disaster if we
> lose some.
If there's not much write traffic, the WAL won't be used much anyway.
If you really don't care much about the integrity, then the best option is
probably to put the WAL on ramfs.
Having said that, flash is cheaper than RAM. Why not just get a bigger
flash device? The "too many writes wear it out" argument is mostly not
true nowadays anyway.
Matthew
--
Don't worry! The world can't end today because it's already tomorrow
in Australia.
