| From: | Tore Halvorsen <tore(dot)halvorsen(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hot standby and xlog on a ramdisk |
| Date: | 2016-02-04 14:46:37 |
| Message-ID: | CADGw-SfPiXCVugWFayc=69JCd8CfO-MjXjfv8i4Zgw1ay_iyfA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Scott R Mead <scottm(at)openscg(dot)com> wrote:
> > Can a hot standby run correctly with the xlog-files on a ramdisk?
>> >
>>
>> Yes, but, if you lose any, you'll need to rebuild the standby.
>>
>>
> Even if the master and archive contain all the wal files?
>
> If you have the file somewhere, you're okay, whether it's on the master,
> standby or an archive host. If you're using log-shipping, you'll need all
> the WALs.
>
So, just to verify my understanding. Using a ramdisk for pg_xlog on a hot
standby slave should be ok in all cases as long as the archive and master
retains all wal files that are not applied?
I maintain a fairly active database (>100GB of wal files every day) and
putting the wal files on a ramdisk (only for the slaves of course) helped
quite a lot.
--
Eld på åren og sol på eng gjer mannen fegen og fjåg. [Jøtul]
<demo> Tore Halvorsen || +052 0553034554
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Steele | 2016-02-04 15:08:41 | Re: Hot standby and xlog on a ramdisk |
| Previous Message | Scott R Mead | 2016-02-04 14:30:11 | Re: Hot standby and xlog on a ramdisk |