Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache

All,

So, I've been discussing this because using PostgreSQL on the caching
layer has become more common that I think most people realize.  Jonathan
is one of 4 companies I know of who are doing this, and with the growth
of Hadoop and other large-scale data-processing technologies, I think
demand will increase.

Especially as, in repeated tests, PostgreSQL with persistence turned off
is just as fast as the fastest nondurable NoSQL database.  And it has a
LOT more features.

Now, while fsync=off and tmpfs for WAL more-or-less eliminate the IO for
durability, they don't eliminate the CPU time.  Which means that a
caching version of PostgreSQL could be even faster.   To do that, we'd
need to:

a) Eliminate WAL logging entirely
b) Eliminate checkpointing
c) Turn off the background writer
d) Have PostgreSQL refuse to restart after a crash and instead call an
exteral script (for reprovisioning)

Of the three above, (a) is the most difficult codewise.  (b)(c) and (d)
should be relatively straightforwards, although I believe that we now
have the bgwriter doing some other essential work besides syncing
buffers.  There's also a narrower use-case in eliminating (a), since a
non-fsync'd server which was recording WAL could be used as part of a
replication chain.

This isn't on hackers because I'm not ready to start working on a patch,
but I'd like some feedback on the complexities of doing (b) and (c) as
well as how many people could use a non-persistant, in-memory postgres.

--
                                   -- Josh Berkus
                                      PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
                                      http://www.pgexperts.com