Qualifying use of separate TABLESPACES (performance/functionality) - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Imndlf8r@gmx.com
Subject Qualifying use of separate TABLESPACES (performance/functionality)
Date
Msg-id d8ae1bb4-3220-66e4-b873-5d8e19edc9e2@gmx.com
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: Qualifying use of separate TABLESPACES (performance/functionality)
List pgsql-general
Hi,

I'm designing an appliance (think: 24/7/365/decades) in which Postgres
will act as a "skin" on the sole persistent store.  I.e., there is no
"filesystem" visible to clients; *all* persistent (and temporary/shared)
data is presented through Postgres.

There are three different types of data maintained in the RDBMS:
- static (firmware images, "reference" data, appliance configuration, etc)
- evolving (largely static but slowly evolving)
- transient (temp tables/joins, etc. built by cooperating groups of clients)

As this is an appliance, cost is important -- along with availability.
It's not acceptable to plan on a hardware upgrade in anything less than
a decade or more)

I would, ideally, like to tailor the media used for each type of (above)
data.  E.g., QLC SSDs for static data, SLC SSDs (or HDDs) for evolving
and RAMdisks for transient.

Can I do this?  And, would my "expectations" for the types of accesses
in each tablespace be intuitive?  E.g., could I expect no/few WRITES
to the tablespace with the static data if I never call for it to be
explicitly updated??  (IIRC, Oracle allows a tablespace to be qualified
as "READ-ONLY" and implemented on true R/O media)

Or, does Postgres expect to be able to access any media however it wants
(i.e., R/w), regardless of the expected access patterns of the data stored
there?



pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: Code does Not Read in FY 2025 Data
Next
From: Christophe Pettus
Date:
Subject: Re: Qualifying use of separate TABLESPACES (performance/functionality)