Re: [HACKERS] Question about durability and postgresql.

2015-02-20 Thread Haribabu Kommi
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Alfred Perlstein bri...@mu.org wrote: Hello, We have a combination of 9.3 and 9.4 databases used for logging of data. We do not need a strong durability guarantee, meaning it is ok if on crash a minute or two of data is lost from our logs. (This is just

Re: [HACKERS] Question about durability and postgresql.

2015-02-20 Thread David Steele
Hi Alfred, These questions would be better posted to the general list, but I'll take a crack at them here: On 2/20/15 1:18 AM, Alfred Perlstein wrote: We have a combination of 9.3 and 9.4 databases used for logging of data. We do not need a strong durability guarantee, meaning it is ok if on

[HACKERS] Question about durability and postgresql.

2015-02-20 Thread Alfred Perlstein
Hello, We have a combination of 9.3 and 9.4 databases used for logging of data. We do not need a strong durability guarantee, meaning it is ok if on crash a minute or two of data is lost from our logs. (This is just stats for our internal tool). I am looking at this page:

[HACKERS] Question about durability and postgresql.

2015-02-19 Thread Alfred Perlstein
Hello, We have a combination of 9.3 and 9.4 databases used for logging of data. We do not need a strong durability guarantee, meaning it is ok if on crash a minute or two of data is lost from our logs. (This is just stats for our internal tool). I am looking at this page: