"Alexander Todorov" <alexx.todorov@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 7/1/07, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> As long as shared_buffers is high enough, there doesn't seem to be much >> point in worrying about this; the incremental performance gain will be >> minimal since everything will be in RAM anyway. > Yes it will be but this does not mean there will be no disk i/o > operations. Database contents still have to be backed up on disk > (unless there is a mechanism of delayed wrtite to disk which I am not > aware of). It's called a checkpoint. Assuming that you would actually like your changes to get saved someplace, I doubt you are going to be able to improve efficiency by replacing the existing write mechanisms by some ad-hoc application-level backup procedure. That's why I asked if you thought losing data at crash was a feature, as opposed to a severe demerit that you put up with in the hope of gaining some performance --- because unless that's what you think, it's probably not a real useful path to pursue. regards, tom lane
