On 08/10/2016 09:04 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Joshua D. Drake (j...@commandprompt.com) wrote:
+1 for Robert here, removing async commit is a non-starter. It is
PostgreSQL performance 101 that you disable synchronous commit
unless you have a specific data/business requirement that needs it.
Specifically because of how much faster Pg is with async commit.
I agree that we don't want to get rid of async commit, but, for the
archive, I wouldn't recommend using it unless you specifically understand
and accept that trade-off, so I wouldn't lump it into a "PostgreSQL
performance 101" group- that's increasing work_mem, shared_buffers, WAL
size, etc. Accepting that you're going to lose *committed* transactions
on a crash requires careful thought and consideration of what you're
going to do when that happens, not the other way around.
Yes Stephen, you are correct which is why I said, "unless you have a
specific data/business requirement that needs it".
Thanks!
jD
Thanks!
Stephen
--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
