| From: | Francisco Olarte <folarte(at)peoplecall(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Moreno Andreo <moreno(dot)andreo(at)evolu-s(dot)it> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WAL directory size calculation |
| Date: | 2016-07-28 18:45:57 |
| Message-ID: | CA+bJJbwN260oC9Mj-sHsazUpQfh7uEu6FRSYhwPcDa9UyFAn+g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Moreno Andreo <moreno(dot)andreo(at)evolu-s(dot)it> wrote:
> Obviously ramdisk will be times faster disk, but having a, say, 512 GB
> ramdisk will be a little too expensive :-)
Besides defeating the purpose of WAL, if you are going to use non
persistent storage for WAL you could as well use minimal level,
fsync=off and friends.
> Aside of this, I'm having 350 DBs that sum up a bit more than 1 TB, and plan
> to use wal_level=archive because I plan to have a backup server with barman.
Is this why you plan using RAM for WAL ( assuming fast copies to the
archive and relying on it for recovery ) ?
Francisco Olarte.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | D'Arcy J.M. Cain | 2016-07-28 19:30:39 | Re: Uber migrated from Postgres to MySQL |
| Previous Message | Edson Richter | 2016-07-28 18:09:41 | Re: Uber migrated from Postgres to MySQL |