On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Moreno Andreo <moreno.and...@evolu-s.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. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
