Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Dimitri Fontaine
Subject Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache
Date
Msg-id m2typ18ow0.fsf@hi-media.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
Responses Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache
Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache
Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache
List pgsql-performance
Hi,

Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> a) Eliminate WAL logging entirely
> b) Eliminate checkpointing
> c) Turn off the background writer
> d) Have PostgreSQL refuse to restart after a crash and instead call an
> exteral script (for reprovisioning)

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.

Then you could have the GUC set for a whole cluster, only a database
etc. We already have synchronous_commit to trade durability against
performances, we could maybe support protect_data = off too.

The d) point I'm not sure still applies if you have per transaction
setting, which I think makes the most sense. The data you choose not to
protect is missing at restart, just add some way to register a hook
there. We already have one (shared_preload_libraries) but it requires
coding in C.

Calling a user function at the end of recovery and before accepting
connection would be good I think. A user function (per database) is
better than a script because if you want to run it before accepting
connections and still cause changes in the database…

Regards,
--
dim

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Pierre C"
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache