> This then begs the obvious question of how fast is this with > synchronous_commit = on?
Probably not awful, especially with commit_delay. I'll try that and report back. Best, Pierre On Fri, Jul 25, 2025, at 00:03, Jeff Ross wrote: > On 7/24/25 13:50, Pierre Barre wrote: > >> It’s not “safe” or “unsafe”, there’s mountains of valid workloads which >> don’t require synchronous_commit. Synchronous_commit don’t make your system >> automatically safe either, and if that’s a requirement, there’s many >> workarounds, as you suggested, it certainly doesn’t make the setup useless. >> >> Best, >> Pierre >> >> On Thu, Jul 24, 2025, at 21:44, Nico Williams wrote: >>> On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 12:57:39PM +0200, Pierre Barre wrote: >>>> - Postgres configured accordingly memory-wise as well as with >>>> synchronous_commit = off, wal_init_zero = off and wal_recycle = off. >>> Bingo. That's why it's fast (synchronous_commit = off). It's also why >>> it's not safe _unless_ you have a local, fast, persistent ZIL device >>> (which I assume you don't). >>> >>> Nico >>> -- > This then begs the obvious question of how fast is this with > synchronous_commit = on?
