Re: Asynchronous commit | Transaction loss at server crash

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:

> Also, it's questionable whether a SSD is even going to be faster than
> standard disks for the sequential WAL writes anyway, once a non-volatile
> write cache is available.  Sequential writes to SSD are the area where the
> gap in performance between them and spinning disks is the smallest.

Yeah, at this point, the only place I'd consider using an SSD in
production is as a tablespace for indexes.  Their win is huge for
random IO, and indexes can always be rebuilt.  Data, not so much.
Transaction logs, even less.

rls

--
:wq